Kris Deugau wrote:
Jesse Stroik wrote:
You don't. Hit delete.
Sorry, there aren't enough of me to hand-filter 30K ISP user accounts.
I wasn't clear. I'm suggesting the user delete them. Overaggressive
spam filters that get false positives are much more dangerous to email
than spam.
Unfortunately I'm getting reports that the current catch rate is closer
to 50% on a number of accounts - of course, without reporting of some
kind I can't do much to improve that...
Now that isn't right. I expect >90%. There is a big difference between
getting 95% with the last 5% being exponentially more difficult to catch
and only getting ~50%.
I'd recommend setting up a reporting account. One man's definition of
spam may be another man's ziff-davis opt-in email, something your spam
filters shouldn't be automatically discarding.
with post reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname is also very nice
You will get false positives with this.
There are a variety of mail servers configured out there, not
improperly, mind you, that won't reverse resolve correctly for any
number of reasons. While it would be nice for their received lines to
reflect any external (in some cases) mail proxy that does reverse
resolve, it is not reasonable to expect them to do so to match your idea
of spam filtering.
Best,
Jesse
