On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Mikkel Bang wrote: > 2012/9/20 Anonymous <nore...@breaka.net>: > >>Thanks a lot everyone! After thinking long and hard about all > >>your advice I finally ended up with: > >> > >>..+ postfix-anti-UCE.txt +.. > > > > "Ultimate" server, or "cheap" server? > > > > Postfix-anti-UCE.txt is a poor choice because of the damage it > > does to legitimate mail. Although you may be stuck with it if > > you cannot afford a server that can do a more intelligent > > analysis. But if your resources are too tight to analyse every > > message, then you can't build an "ultimate email server". > > > > DNSBLs are a sloppy way to cut down on traffic - a strategy large > > providers use to cut expenses (read: increase profits) at the > > cost of legitimate mail. > > > > An "ultimate" mail server that is built with quality of service > > in mind does not use crude techniques prone to collateral damage. > > > > Thank you for your reply. It stands out from all the rest ;)
I did not see this on the list, was it sent offlist? Indeed it does stand out: offering you fact-free FUD. In the past month have you been running your "ultimate mail server"? If so, look at your own logs. Ask your users. What legitimate mail did your "sloppy" and "crude" ways cost you? Billions of mailboxes worldwide rely on Spamhaus Zen protection. Indeed, it's a low cost means of protection. Other ideas from postfix-anti-UCE.txt, such as reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname, are likewise safe, effective, and cheap. > What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk > about? Probably more subjective FUD lacking real data, if I were to guess. I'll suggest that followups to this would be better heard on SDLU: http://spammers.dontlike.us/ -- http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
