nanog mailing list archives
Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists
From: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:39:53 -0500
[I know it is not spam-l, but I still am interested. :-] On Mar 3, 2004, at 6:32 PM, Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Scott Call wrote:On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:Have you look at graylisting, temp failing mail with a sender/receiver/IPyou have not seen before?I don't know what the prevailing attitude is, but it seems to me that 451ing unknown senders is a good way to get on the bad side ofsysadmins who have to deal with the backlog until your server decides toaccept them.Well every valid to/from/ip gets thrown in mysql any new message with that same to/from/ip would never be delayed again. Also I temp fail before theDATA phase so body is not sent twice and I only temp fail for 5 min.
How's that working? Many complaints? How much spam did it kill (that other things don't)?
Thought about changing it from to/from/ip to from/ip? -- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Brandon Shiers (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Nathan Allen Stratton (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Scott Call (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Nathan Allen Stratton (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Patrick W . Gilmore (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Scott Call (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Nathan Allen Stratton (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Patrick W . Gilmore (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Richard Welty (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Patrick W . Gilmore (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Richard Welty (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Steve Linford (Mar 04)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Richard Welty (Mar 03)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Steven Champeon (Mar 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Mar 04)
- Re: SPAM Prevention/Blacklists Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Mar 06)