Andrew - Supernews wrote: >>>>>>"David" == David Saez Padros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> In the best case (when there isn't a specific spammer actively > >> forging just our domain) we see about 100 times as many abusive > >> callouts (ones not in response to mail we sent) as > >> legitimate/excusable callouts (ones caused by mail that actually > >> came from us), and about 10% of our incoming SMTP connections are > >> from blowback sources (callouts, C/R and bounce blowback - we > >> can't reliably distinguish them). > > David> so for this 10% you don't know how many bounces are callouts > David> or real bounces ? then how you know which are abusive and > David> which not ? > > All of them are abusive, because all of them are an attempt to send > either a bounce, a C/R message or a callout in response to mail that > we did not send. > > >> Having a whitelist for known _legitimate_ senders does not reduce > >> in any way the number of _abusive_ callouts you do, by definition. > > David> what you perceive as abusive callouts are protective in my > David> point of view. > > But you're forcing me to devote _my_ resources to protecting _your_ > network. How is this not abusive? >
Because, dear David, not ONE DAMN BIT of this whole smtp shebang works if we DO NOT try to help each other within commonly agreed channels! Handling a few liteweight verifications for others is the quid pro quo for their also helping *you* by trying to reduce abuse *overall*. If you are being *overwhelmed* with forgeries, try more intelligent filtering. How many come from IP's that lack a PTR? rDNS is cached very effectively. And how hard is it to put some /24 or /8 into your firewall that - per their own netblock holders, not just some contentious RBL - are NOT SUPPOSED to *ever* send mail? Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
