On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Mikkel Bang <facebookman...@gmail.com> 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 ;) > > What are these more intelligent, less crude techniques you talk about?
I didn't see that response on the list, so perhaps it was sent to only to you. This sounds like nonsense to me. DNS BL's block thousands of messages cheaply, yes. What is wrong with that? Unless we have lots of false positives, what is the problem? If you choose your block list sources well, the false positive count will be very low. I have users who demand low false positive rates and complain if it is otherwise. I know DNS BLs are rejecting junk and saving on scanning, etc. Likewise for postscreen disconnecting remote servers that talk out of turn - these are useful tricks and if they were dumping legit emails, users would tell people like me.
