Re: Sex spam again on the list
On 19-sep-2007, at 21:27, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
You're obviously right. I was merely responding to filtering personal
mail and the (bad) use of spamcop.net to block mail, the subject this
thread had swerved to. Risking to loose ham on a _non private_ server
however is definitely not a good thing.
On Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:36:30 +0200, Peter Teunissen wrote:
For directly blocking mail however, you'd be better of using the
zen.spamhaus.org combined blocklist wich is very effective and has
no false positives. I don't know how they do it, but it catches
90% of my
spam on it's own. More info can be found on http://www.spamhaus.org
The proiblem of using RBLs on SMTP-time is that the mail is gone,
nevertheless it was UCE or not. This becomes even more problematic, as
postfix currently can't weight this information. The implementation
policy filter we are currently implementing for lists.d.o will do SA
like scoring of RBL data and us that information whether to greylist a
mail or not.
-- Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as
kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic
pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.
-Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc. 1989