Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:33:03 +0100 From: Jorn Argelo <jorn@wcborstel.com> To: Eric Crist <mnslinky@gmail.com> Cc: girishvenkatachalam@gmail.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (postfix) SPAM filter? Message-ID: <476971EF.909@wcborstel.com> In-Reply-To: <A6EAB1D6-CB49-4008-899D-51078181C4C4@gmail.com> References: <20071216185050.GB26535@brahma.susmita.org> <9cc0a3fa1d403f16f4fc9b2abb49fb75@mail.wcborstel.com> <A6EAB1D6-CB49-4008-899D-51078181C4C4@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric Crist wrote: > On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam >> <girishvenkatachalam@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote: >>>> Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it >>> was >>>> very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and >>>> they >>>> follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail >>>> admins >>> do. >>>> Greylisting is a start, but from my experience it is not nearly >>>> enough. >>>> >>> >>> I have heard this said elsewhere too. >> >> Yes don't rely solely on greylisting unless you're a lucky guy and >> don't get a lot of spam. > > > I hear a lot of people saying that greylisting doesn't work, when I > have actual numbers for my network proving it does. These numbers are > from the first week of May 2007 to today: [snip] I'm not saying it doesn't work. As a matter of fact, we're making effective use of greylisting as well. With spamd you can see the sender address and the HELO for example, so you can make nice scripts of trapping forged e-mail addresses, incorrect HELO commands, empty sender addresses, stuff like that. Just the greylisting process itself is only working so-so in our environment. All I'm saying is that greylisting is a start and not a solution :) But like I said, YMMV. Jorn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?476971EF.909>