Re: Blocking mail from=<>

From: Matt Fretwell (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 16:45:33 EST

  • Next message: Kirk Strauser: "Re: Postfix article in Free Software Magazine"

    mouss wrote:

    > At least, GL gives a chance for the message to be accepted, which is
    > after all the final purpose of a protocol such as smtp. GL (or
    > whatever you wanna name it) delays mail but allows for legiti_mate mail
    > to get through. It will of course also allow some ratio of illegitimate
    > mail. On the other hand, *BLs will just reject mail, be it legit or not.
    > Of course, if you don't care to lose mail, then that's not a problem.
    > but most people do care about false positives.

     Even when you are using blocklists, that doesn't mean a sender cannot
    contact you if the rejection is a F.P. I assign one mail account which
    bypasses almost all restrictions, and is mentioned in the rejection
    message, so a legitimate sender|host can always contact me if required.
    There is but one blocklist controlling access to that mail address, and
    that is a locally kept list for anyone who tries sending crap to that
    specific mail address. I work on the principle of allowing one error. If
    they are stupid enough to spam or otherwise abuse the contact address as
    well, they are blocked permanently.

     There are various ways to achieve a workable system. It all boils down to
    personal preference in the end.

    Matt


  • Next message: Kirk Strauser: "Re: Postfix article in Free Software Magazine"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD