Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user being
fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
EXISTED. About 1 ever 3/4 of a second.
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply. In as much as I'd like to help the community,
> > I'm under a set of constraints. Starting a whole other server to start
> > doing
> > this isn't something that fits under those constraints. It looks like
> > I'll probably just end up having to /dev/nul
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the reply. In as much as I'd like to help the community,
> I'm under a set of constraints. Starting a whole other server to start
> doing
> this isn't something that fits under those constraints. It looks like
> I'll probably just end up having to /dev/null them as I hav
At 11:01 09-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
I guess I'm still not being clear. There are 120K emails a day coming
to INVALID EMAIL ADDRESSES THAT NEVER EXISTED. Its not a case of a user being
fickle, its a case that they are emailing addresses that NEVER EVER ACTUALLY
EXISTED. About 1
>
> Automatic reporting - that's another thing entirely. As was pointed out in
> previous replys, the user
> community is not always accurate in reporting what is legit spam, and what
> is/was requested
> or "permitted". I tend to report manually, although I am writing some code
> to semi-auto
>
> At 17:51 08-03-2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > As part of it all, I also want to try to keep disk usage and CPU
> >down to as little as possible. With 120,000 per day, thats a junk mail
> >every 3/4's of a second. Since I have it set to deliver to /dev/null, I
> >reduce the amount
