On Thursday 18 July 2002 18:04 CET Kevin Gagel wrote: > Mark wrote: > > I hate to rain on your parade, but I believe this method is > > self-defeating. In order to allow "random" mail-addresses to be valid > > on your system -- and you do, I checked -- you basically open yourself > > up to even more spam, as a probing spam server will find an endless > > supply of valid email addresses for your domain. They may all go to the > > same controlling user, but it will eat up your resources. > > > > The more serious consequence of dropping the valid user requirement, is > > that you deprived your server of a decent method of informing a > > connecting server that a user account no longer exists. > > I agree with this, I have an option that would allow me to accept all > incoming email. When it was active I had more spam incoming. When I > deactivated it there was a drop in the resource usage. I know this > because my mail server is behind a relay and the level in bounced email > droped. The email would end up in the queue on the relay because the > return address and the destination address were both fake.
There's just one problem: You've got the option to accept all incoming mail. I don't have it; my provider set up sendmail in a way that everything to my domain is delivered to a standard account. And I know several providers (eg. Strato [1], the biggest one in Germany with roundabout 40% of the .de domains) where this feature isn't an option, too. I'm just trying to make the best out of it by setting up unique addresses and filtering everything going to impossible addresses (no, Mark, I don't receive everything I accept ;-). Malte [1]http://www.strato.de -- -- Coding is art. -- ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
