On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Martin Husemann wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 06:34:29PM +0000, Rui Paulo wrote:
>> We have greylisting in action AFAIK.
>
> We have a lot of well-working spam protection, but the archives do not
> get the full protection (I don't know the details why).

What are doing that falls under "well-working"?  In my experience,  
(and according to my data), spammers have figured out the greylisting  
problem.  While some volume of spam is still stopped by greylisting,  
it's no longer the panacea that it was quite a while back.

It appears, in my folder of spam caught by spamassassin on my  
personal domain (which comprises of spam that has gotten past  
postgrey-1.27 and hit spamassassin) that spammers are taking the  
mails with temporary errors and adding it to the end of their queues.

andgasm.beer.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:38:17 UTC
andgasm.beer.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:06:49 UTC
andgasm.beer.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:16:46 UTC
andgasm.beer.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:23:07 UTC

This is primarily what my dataset looks like.

Judging by the amount of spam I get via netbsd-announce-owner,  
greylisting is dead; and our content based filtering simply moves the  
work of keeping the lists clean, onto the list owners.

The sole reason we are in this position is because of the handful of  
very vocal NetBSD users who still pay for UUCP connections and insist  
on posting to NetBSD lists through a usenet gateway and hence refuse  
to subscribe to the lists; resulting in NetBSD management keeping the  
lists open.  We need to accept that this is no longer how the  
internet works and move on...  I've been advocating a "post-only"  
mailing list that these people can subscribe to but which does not  
accept any mail.  If your email address appears on this list or any  
other netbsd list, then you are authorized to post...  However, the  
same small handful of people won't accept this proposal either...

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-i386/2001/03/05/0012.html