I am sorry for going OT and seeming to go on a tangent, but the beliefs of some of the people about spam and what to do about it just baffles me. I was giving Eric advice as well, however it probably got lost in my long paragraphs.
Eric, I would suggest using little to no blacklists at all, and just enabling grey-listing and possibly grey-trapping in spamd. If you still would like to use blacklists, like Bob said, don't use spews. Almost all spam seems to be sent from hacked machines running basic smtp servers that don't really comply to any standards, so grey-listing will catch almost all of them. Grey-trapping addresses that spammers often send to (that don't exist on your mail server) is another way to catch a lot of them, so I'd suggest using that as well. People on Comcast sending valid email from valid smtp servers will get through this, and after the initial wait of up to 4 hours for that first valid email, they will be white-listed at that point and should get right through. Manually white-listing Comcast IP's that you know already send you valid email would make things run smoother as well, so there isn't the initial wait of up to 4 hours. Jason On 6/29/05, Bob Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jason, this isn't an openbsd issue. it's a spews issue. > > Like I said, personally, I've just stopped using > spews[12]. they've gotten too aggressive. Before there were any > other options this might have made sense. Now there are, and imnso > this level of baby-in-bathwater chucking is simply not worth it. > > Along with the next round of spamd changes, I will probably remove > the spews examples, just because I'm sick to death of hearing about > this too :) > > -Bob > > * Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-29 08:32]: > > On 6/29/05, Matthew S Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Probably because a very high percentage of spam comes from comcast IP > > > space. Their customer base is completely clueless. If someone is > > > > Just because I have comcast doesn't make me clueless. Trust me, I'd go > > with another provider, but they are the ONLY cable internet provider > > in the baltimore area, and the price to bandwidth ratio is better than > > dsl, as the fastest dst I can get is under 1mbps. > > > > > complaining, tell them to send through a non blacklisted SMTP server. > > > > So just because I'm too poor to get a colocated server, if I want to > > run my own mail server, I'm just shit out of luck? That seems > > unacceptable to me. The ability to run an email server shouldn't be in > > direct relation to how much money I make, which I thought was part of > > the point to OpenBSD, free. Any residential ISP will have customers > > that have no clue, because most people just don't need (or feel they > > don't need) to know much at all about computers, but I shouldn't have > > to suffer because of their ignorance (and yours). > > > > > That IP space is in the list for a reason. > > > > Because almost everyone (not just us stupid comcast customers) has > > made spam profitable, so it has now flourished. If people didn't make > > spam profitable, it would go away. Education is a much needed step, > > but it seems you would rather shut us dumb comcast customers off from > > the internet and wash your hands of it. > > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 2005, at 12:23 AM, eric wrote: > > > > > > > Has anyone notice a huge amount of problems with spamd(8) and > > > > Comcast/ATT > > > > Worldnet Service mail servers? Seems that things like 204.127.198.34, > > > > and > > > > almost everything in 204.127 is in spews1. > > > > > > > > If anyone has a way around this (to only greylist the poor souls that > > > > use > > > > comcast), please lemme know. I'd love to continue using spews[12], but > > > > too > > > > many people complain. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > - Eric > > > > -- > Bob Beck Computing and Network Services > [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Alberta > True Evil hides its real intentions in its street address.
