On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:54:58 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| David Wetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >| > How about implementing some checks like we do? >| > http://www.turbocat.de/help/antispam/ >| >| Please, don't use all of those. Some are offensively broken. >| >| Checks 1.2 (no ISP mail relaying for some webmail domains), >| 1.3 (SPF, which also breaks some legitimate mail relaying) and >| 1.4 (using blacklists to reject mail) will cause many false positives. >| For example, even sbl-xbl frequently lists new ISP mailservers and things >| like that (at least spamcop wasn't mentioned...), and some of the biggest >| and worst ISPs are changing their email services to domains like those >| mentioned (BT with Yahoo, Sky with Google, and so on). >| >| Check 2.1 needs much care to avoid false positives. We use 1 and 1.4 (only few selected rbls for 1.4 ) 1.1 is IMHO not acceptable 1.2 is studied 1.3 & 1.4 are used for spam tagging 2.1 & 2.2 are implemented via spamassassin 2.3 is here for a long time Greylisting avoid a lot of spams, zero (or near zero) false-positive with little annoyance for real mail servers (except keeping a lot of triplets for xx days). We've also try IP -> Name -> IP test and helo host verification but there's really too much misconfigured servers (including big names like ebay,...) My (personnal) spam count was fallen from >1600 / day to something like 100 (and most of them are [spam] tagged). But that's not really a gnustep discussion :-) Manuel -- ______________________________________________________________________ Manuel Guesdon - ORANGE CONCEPT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 14 rue Jean-Baptiste Clement - 93200 Saint-Denis - France Tel: +33 1 4940 0997 - Fax: +33 1 4940 0998 _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
