On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 15:49 -0600, /dev/rob0 wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 03:59:22PM -0500, Peter Blair wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Reindl Harald > > <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > how do other people act with such braindead sh**t? > > > > Look into greylisting it. You'll find that greylisting could very > > well deal with most of the bots that things like zen.spamhaus.org > > would normally deal with. And strictly speaking, you're not > > filtering it -- just making a policy decision to not accept the > > transaction before the DATA section ;) > > Personally I do not consider strict RFC interpretation to be worth > more than the time it takes to sort through the garbage. All my mail > is subjected to Zen and BRBL blockage (with DNSWL and SWL exceptions > allowed.) Very little spam here since I decided to do that. (Most of > what does get through is to the postmaster addresses, however.) > > postscreen/smtpd_reject_footer is a safety net. A real sender can > view that and figure out alternate means of contact. That has not > happened in the time since smtpd_reject_footer was implemented here. > > I'd much rather give someone a rejection, than accept their mail and > miss it in a flood of spam.
I agree. When really flooded with spam , you would probably miss a real abuse complain. But there are cons of scanning the postmaster messages too. Most complains too will get hit as spam I manually delete the spam messages that come to my abuse@ id. but not before feeding it to a program that automatically creates URI and domain blacklists. These spammers are then blocked from sending to abuse@ addresses.
