Re: Unusual spam recently - hummm
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, s. keeling wrote:
> I actually meant the typical "worst practices" for which spammers are
> so well known. Spammers use these things to avoid detection. Average
maybe we should reject misspelled email subject lines :-)
> users do them without even realizing it. For instance, Alvin
> automatically deep-sixes html mail.
> Ordinary users don't even know when they're sending html mails.
corp users dont care or need to care where incoming business mails
are coming from in whatever format and languages ( and *.tld )
- lot harder to define spam in a corp environment
personal email .. you can proably reject alll html emails
and whitelist all your friends that are sending html emails
>
> No, it was just an example since Alvin mentioned it.
because html based email is the devil ... carrying spam and virii :-)
and most people dont care that they send text and html emails
> Uhh, what? My original starting point in all this was to find out if
> Alvin's suggestions had merit.
has merit only if you agree with the strict or dumb antispam rules
and conversely, a bad set of rules if one doesnt agree with it
> Following on that, what would it take to implement them?
some of the typical antispam rules are 5 minutes to solve, solved
once for everybody ...
> My favourite admin is loathe to do _anything_ that
> could cause his users to complain of lost mail. How he cuts out the
> %60-%80 of crap without causing a riot is all I wanted to know.
lost emails is a bad thing ... nobody likes to be told they
didnt get their emails
> BTW, regarding "2." above. Remember the days when there was such
> reticence on the part of Sendmail's maintainers to actually change
> Sendmail to comply with RFCs? It was pretty well a given then that
> doing so would turn half the planet dark overnight because so many
> admins were still running Sendmail versions that had been obsoleted
> years before.
things should go dark .. so that one understands what a bigger
hole we're digging, but its too late now ...
c ya
alvin
Reply to: