- Previous message: Tony Earnshaw: "Re: Custom headers"
- In reply to: Simon Waters: "Thanks - and spam stats"
- Next in thread: Adrian von Bidder: "Re: Thanks - and spam stats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Tony Earnshaw (no email)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 13:42:20 EDT
ons, 01.06.2005 kl. 12.27 skrev Simon Waters:
[...]
> So far there is no evidence that the greylisting is becoming less effective
> with time, which was one of my concerns (minor concern - the obvious solution
> involves using "rm" regularly).
I agree with your verdict utterly until just this point. A low-volume
site (mine), max 1500 incoming messages a day, running gld as greylist
daemon for the last 6+ months has registered (empirically) the amount
of greylisted mail drop by around 1/2, whilst the number of rejected
origins rejected using our modest 5 RBL donors employed has risen
steadily.
I must admit we're extremely proactive and prohibitive in rejecting
Net-wide zombie and spammer networks within networks. That is to say,
that an ISP (say planet.nl or comcast.com or hinet) has one set of IPs
for shit users and another for its own bona-fide smtp servers. We(I)'ll
do jwhois lookups on each spam sender from these networks and shut out
swathes of consumer DSL and similar networks belonging to that ISP,
whilst still allowing the ISP's official stuff. However, everybody gets
to send mail to our postmaster and abuse. But, the SBL servers are
slowly catching up on these swine and obviating our exclusions. The
result for us is a couple of spams a week out of, say, 7,000 messages.
Virus makes no chance at all, those we kill immediately.
> The only downside seem to be that this isn't the email server that handles my
> email.
'spect you'll correct that soon ;)
> The only issue to come to light since going live was the need to increase the
> maximum number of connections to the Postgresql database with the virtual
> user tables in (primarily to deal with the backlog of emails that built up in
> the transition between old and new servers).
There's been a lot of discussion about PgSQL and MySQL databases on the
dspam list. Me, I originally chose for MySQL and that's my poison, but I
don't use it for Postfix - I use LDAP. There appear to have been several
improvements to the base PgSQL implementation recently; MySQL for dspam
is and stays lightning fast.
--Tonni
-- mail: http://www.billy.demon.nl
|
|
|