Den 11. jul 2004, kl. 1:18, skrev Martin List-Petersen:
Citat Lucas Albers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Robert Cope said:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
have you considered using greylisting?
Greylisting really does work well. I implemented it on my antispam
smtp
servers and its effect was amazing.
Enable surbl in
On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 12:06, Jon Bendtsen wrote:
Den 11. jul 2004, kl. 1:18, skrev Martin List-Petersen:
I won't touch SpamCop (and surbl uses SpamCop). They list too many
sites, that
aren't spam. Even my server was listed there for about 2 days, because
somebody
has reported a spam
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 00:06, Robert Cope wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:42:48AM +0200, Marc-Christian Petersen
wrote:
On Friday 09 July 2004 11:35, alvaro wrote:
Either make this list FINALLY subscribed ONLY or remove me. I can't
read this spam any longer!
Den 10. jul 2004, kl. 17:31, skrev Martin List-Petersen:
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 00:06, Robert Cope wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:42:48AM +0200, Marc-Christian Petersen
wrote:
On Friday 09 July 2004 11:35, alvaro wrote:
Either make this list FINALLY subscribed ONLY or
Robert Cope said:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
have you considered using greylisting?
Greylisting really does work well. I implemented it on my antispam smtp
servers and its effect was amazing.
Enable surbl in spamassassin.
My (Vserver) external mail server does this, and it will grab a lot of
spam
Citat Lucas Albers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Robert Cope said:
Jon Bendtsen wrote:
have you considered using greylisting?
Greylisting really does work well. I implemented it on my antispam smtp
servers and its effect was amazing.
Enable surbl in spamassassin.
My (Vserver) external
