Subject: Re: Spam suggestion...
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.org>
From: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
Date: 02/22/2004 08:40:54
In message <20040222143748.17F8F2946A@grok.beer.org>, Herb Peyerl writes:
>I tried leaning through the layers at Telia. The upper layers keep
>quoting policy.... I finally found a sympathetic sysadmin who
>claimed to delegate the records to me. She only did it on one of their
>nameservers so now when you lookup the PTR's of my mailserver, you
>only occasionally get a name. She left the company shortly there-
Wow. That's scary.
>My point is, you can radically decrease the amount of spam you get
>by filtering on ever more stringent things. For example, you can
>stop a lot of spam and viruses if you reject all mail from outlook
>mail servers. I suggest you do that too.
The difference is, it's not yet clear that merely being an Outlook mail server
contradicts any RFCs.
> > We're also reaching the point where measures like this are becoming more
> > palatable simply because the volume of legitimate mail lost to them is lower
> > than the volume of legitimate mail lost to not having them...
>I seem to do quite well filtering my spam without using this method.
Lucky you. I'm in the middle of having to upgrade TWO machines to handle the
load of spam coming in to a mere couple dozen users. I'd guess that spam and
overhead is well past 95% of our email load, and solidly over 90% of our
network traffic, at this point.