[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Possible anti-spam reject host

On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:00:39AM -0500, dman wrote:
<snip snip>
> No.  Only if they choose to.  They _could_ be checking an "inputs" RBL
> and denying them the ability to abuse the swbell system like that.
> | I have a whole sh*t pot full of filter defs.
> Spamassassin is much more effective than that.

SA is great in addition to MTA level access lists / RBL's.

The problem with SA alone is that spam still wastes my bandwidth. I get so much
spam that my bandwidth would suffer if I didn't use RBL's and local access
lists. I need to stop them before they body is sent. SA can't do that.

Generating a 550 after you receive the entire email is kinda pointless except
for the additional burden it puts on the clueless sysadmins running open
relays / proxies. There is also the issue of MTA's that don't respect a 550
after DATA so they keep pounding you with mail over and over. I don't need that

Then you have companies like etracks, monsterhut, outblaze, etc. that are PURE
spam houses.  I see no reason to accept any traffic from them at all. From my
logs, it's clear that they don't respect the fact that all users they attempt
are undeliverable.  Outblaze for example has been pounding my mail server about
20 times per day for over a year, and I have not been able to get any response
from their abuse / support staff.

The bottom line is that people that run open relays are a very large part of the
spam problem. If they can't take the time to secure their systems, I can't be
bothered to accept mail from them. Spam is not new. Everyone knows it's a problem.
There is no excuse anymore to be ignorant.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: