On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:20:46AM +0100, Karsten M. Self said > on Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:32:59PM +1000, Rob Weir (rweir@ertius.org) wrote: > > If you have the level of MTA control neccessary to automatically reply > > to CR queries, then just block Swen at the MTA level. I've rejected > > 34552 incoming Swen mails in the past few days, before my MTA even > > receives them. Unfortunately, my secondary MXs don't know to drop that > > crap, so they accept it and then try to send it on to my mail server, > > making that count rather inflated. > > Incidentally, a friend tells an anectdote of turning on teergrubing in > exim4 per Marc Merlin's configuration...and promptly teergrubing the > hell out of his secondary MXs. Might want to ensure that these are > excluded from any countermeasures you take. Good point. SA has been working so well lately that I haven't bothered to implement any teergrubing at all yet, but I'll bear that in mind. > > Imagine that instead of dropping that shit on the floor, you sent a CR > > query. You've just doubled the number of mails flying around (thought > > not the volume, of course). > > Doubled mail. For no useful effect. And required 4GB of spool space, > extended over the 1-2 weeks you hold your contested mail. Yup. Reason #23131 why CR is a poor solution. I'm quite amazed at how well SA and simple checks like my Postfix body regexp work. I still get spam, and oodles of it, but it's almost flawlessly classified. I check out my spam folders every few days, and I've found perhaps five false positive in the past...3 months, more? False negatives are a smallish issue, but almost everything that gets through is either too small for bayesian to work effectively, or CJK spam that I can't even read. -- Rob Weir <rweir@ertius.org> | mlspam@ertius.org | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: USCODE Iran quarter North Korea Cheney North Korea quiche MD2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature