On 31 Aug 2006 20:39:47 -0000, you wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Michael W Cocke wrote: > >> I've got every ruleset & blacklist available and I'm still getting >> buried - the bayes poison in all of the recent spam has wrecked that. >> Does anyone see a reason why I can't assume messages with blank >> subjects are junk? > >maybe add a point for missing subject, but some automatically generated >messages (print queue failure, etc) have blank subjects, and lots of >nubies forget to add a subject. That's exactly why I asked here - I didn't think of error essages. Thanks! >> Also, I've got an idea about maybe doing an >> nslookup on the envelope sender domain and junking anything without an >> entry. > >Um, why aren't you already doing this at the SMTP-MTA level? Checking >for a valid sender domain has been SOP for years. I am, but not quite the way I'm thinking of doing it now. >One caveat, do a temp-fail (451) not a hard-fail for domain >lookup failure, occasionally DNS servers do get constipated. ;) >I made that mistake once, several years ago, M$ had all their primary >DNS servers on -one- subnet, had a router failure and they all went >MIA. My MTAs started bouncing all hotmail. ;() LOL - can't say I'd miss hotmail, but I take your point. Thanks everyone. Mike- -- If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough. -- Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
