On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 09:27 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: > Just wondering something. I'm using the new NOTQUIT acl and looking at > connections that don't use quit. I'm wondering if the failure to quit > might be used as a spam indicator. Not as an absolute indicator, but > just in general. Just thinking out loud here. Always looking for a spam > indicator.
I know I quoted it in jest, but the message about the sheep recently was a real one. There are myriad reasons why some remote server goes away before QUIT - bad application writing by a spammer, network congestion, intermediate packet loss, phase of the moon, cosmic particles, birds on the wires... to name but a few. Only one of the above is related to spam. You *cannot* assume that a failure to send QUIT means a given session has transmitted spam, you really can't. You can't even use it as an indicator that it might have done. As an example, I recently received the same message 16 times from another well-known OSS project mailing list; for some reason the remote mailer didn't think I had accepted the message when in fact I had, and eventually it dropped the session without QUIT. OK, so I received the same message 16 times - that's irritating, but it didn't mean spam. Graeme -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
