Graeme Fowler wrote: > 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 > > >
I'm thinking that combining this with other factors that it might be spam. I'm just trying to figure out what other factors to combine it with. -- ## 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/
