Re: UOL Anti spam is back, again...

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 12:23, Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 16:28 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 16:02, Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 15:55 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 14:37, Anthony Messina wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I'm getting them again.

Mike

Postfix client access file:

uol.br.com REJECT Your anti-spam configuration creates more
spam; \ please fix it.

Not all mail from uol.br.com is spam - I do get genuine mail
that I want to keep, so my procmail recipe just says

:0

* ^From: .*Antispam
/dev/null>

I never see them unless I look through the logs. Of course it
does mean that they are downloaded before being dropped, but
that's no big deal for me.

----
no it's not a big deal for you and probably effective but I would
suggest that you recognize it is that type of behavior you are
employing that you are rebelling against...receiving messages that
are summarily sent to the giant bit bucket in the sky and the
'proper' way to handle is to reject them at the outset.

Obviously this simplifies things since mail to abuse@xxxxxxxxxx
goes unanswered and that is probably the larger crime but all in
all, it's bad form to simply bit bucket mail that you have
received (though most of us do that now).

OTOH I don't clog up the Internet with messages that no-one wants.

----
and sell it as a premium service on top of that too! ;-)

seriously though, I know you run your own smtp server and I am trying
to point out to you that procmail is probably the wrong place to bit
bucket stuff like this.

The better place is to reject it at the smtp server and thus, you
won't have to run it through spamassassin/anti-virus/procmail etc.
and also, by rejecting it at smtp server, at least the sender has a
chance to find out what happened to the email, whereas when you bit
bucket it, very few clues are left behind.

Craig

And I'm gonna bite back here a wee bit Craig. uol.com.br obviously
hasn't got a quarter to call somebody who cares, so I'm not the least
bit bashfull to say that anything from uol.com.br, goes to /dev/null as
soon as procmail recognizes it. I don't even look for the antispam in
the left half of the address. Since we can't force them to fix it any
other way but to effectively black hole the jerks, but thats likely not
going to be effective until all the mail servers in the world do
likewise, which if I had my way would happen yet today. In the
meantime I don't have to read anything from them. They certainly
aren't going to reform and start sending out a new version of the 419
are they? Their users might, but in that event its one less of those I
delete while I'm looking for SA FP's. Which I might add are getting
fewer and farther between.

--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: UOL Anti spam is back, again...
    ... Not all mail from uol.br.com is spam - I do get genuine mail that I want ... so my procmail recipe just says ... sent to the giant bit bucket in the sky and the 'proper' way to handle ... The better place is to reject it at the smtp server and thus, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Exchange Hijacked
    ... >Lot's of spammers use domains that either have no inbound SMTP server, ... find the compromised user account ... Thats a lot of spam and a lot of email addresses, ... > Turn off the ability for authenticated users to realy and see what ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: SMTP not relaying all emails
    ... The emails are flagged due to having the SMTP Server in another domain, ... If it is spam blocked, the receiver can set it so it allows the GoDaddy ... ADODB.Fields oFields; ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: UOL Anti spam is back, again...
    ... smtp server. ... you gain conformity with RFC's by rejecting it whereas ... obviously rejecting when using fetchmail is a pointless option. ... waste a second of time greylisting it, scanning it for attachments, spam ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: How long does read(2) wait before an EAGAIN is thrown?
    ... The idea being that if the server is known to be a pure spam source, ... It may also delay/block the connection just because the IP address is ... The idea is to slow the sender down a bit, ... I'm connecting to the Exim SMTP server on my local Linux box, ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
Loading