On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Blars Blarson wrote: > >So, IMHO, spam filtering at bugs.debian.org should continue to be at > >least as good as it is in lists.debian.org. If for this to happen you > >have to use some soft but effective DNSBL like the CBL, or some advanced > >technology like greylisting, or both, please consider doing so. > > > >The 100,000 spams a day figure is very impressive indeed, but I don't > >think the BTS really *has* to receive all those spams. Many of them > >could be rejected at SMTP time. > > We are useing SBL-XBL as part of the spamassassin filtering, which > includes CBL. > > I think we are doing about as good as we can with the resouces > available. The only ways I think we could do significantly better > would require more manpower. (Either rewrite spamscan to be > multi-theaded so we can do more network tests, or spend more time > manually checking mail and writing spamassasin rules.) > > I'm closing this bug since I don't think it serves any useful purpouse > to leave it open. > > If you have any useful sugestions, send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course I have: I suggest that you use SBL-XBL to reject email at SMTP stage. That's what I say we don't really *have* to receive those messages. Then there will be more resources available that could be used for razor. May I know why do you consider this suggestion "not useful"? On one hand you say that "we are doing about as good as we can with the resouces available", but on the other hand you do not seem to be willing to increase the resources. What's the logic behind this? At the very minimum, we should be rejecting messages from open proxies. There is very little point in wasting CPU power for them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
