Re: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-11 Thread mouss
Fred T wrote: Hello Steve, Saturday, March 8, 2008, 11:56:46 PM, you wrote: Now, I'm no expert on spam-bots, but it strikes me that the 'bots might want to remove failed addresses from their lists to make them more efficient. A 550 error returned at the protocol level will immediately

Re[2]: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-10 Thread Fred T
Hello Steve, Saturday, March 8, 2008, 11:56:46 PM, you wrote: Now, I'm no expert on spam-bots, but it strikes me that the 'bots might want to remove failed addresses from their lists to make them more efficient. A 550 error returned at the protocol level will immediately notify the 'bot

Re: Re[2]: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-10 Thread Loren Wilton
I have a MRTG graph of # of spam blocked in transit and it's been consistently 52-56k a day for years!! I always notice a huge decrease over the weekend and it picks up big-time during the week. From 40k on the weekend to an average peak of 54k weekdays. I wonder if this means that the

Re: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-08 Thread Chris Hoogendyk
Henrik K wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:07:16PM -0800, Steve Cloutier wrote: Hi ! Call me -- whatever :-) I took a look at SpamAssassin a while back, and (at least at the time), it seemed to scan the mailbox file after the message(s) were received. The program (again, at the time)

Re: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-08 Thread Steve Cloutier
with sendmail alone. Of course, there's also the possiblity of integration with other email packages which may have some sort of protocol level interface. Regards, Steve Anyway, -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Yet-another-spam-blocker--tp15911630p15918095.html Sent from

Re: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-08 Thread Matt Kettler
Steve Cloutier wrote: Hi ! I did a fair amount of sendmail tweaking, and it does indeed do quite a bit (like checking for the existance of domains, etc.), but *not* the sort of filtering I've been able to do with the external code. Um, Yeah.. We know that. Many of us use SpamAssassin as

Re: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-08 Thread Steve Cloutier
, feature creep :-) oh, but we could add this one thing Regards, Steve -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Yet-another-spam-blocker--tp15911630p15920983.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-08 Thread Jari Fredriksson
I just wanted to come up with something that blocked spam at the protocol level (so the spammer gets an error!!!), That's all great.. but the reality may be that the spammer still get no error. Spam is nowadays delivered thru 3rd party innocent bystanders, and the actual spammer hardly is

Re: Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-08 Thread Steve Cloutier
guess, but I can think of better uses of time :-) :-) :-) Regards, Steve -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Yet-another-spam-blocker--tp15911630p15923463.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Yet another spam blocker?

2008-03-07 Thread Steve Cloutier
in earlier versions. Oh well, for what it's worth! Regards, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Yet-another-spam-blocker--tp15911630p15911630.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.