Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:59:08 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: hiding e-mail adresses needed badly Message-ID: <20031015215907.GA43137@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <xzpismq8blw.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <20031015133634.GA37556@nagual.pp.ru> <43618.1066226536@critter.freebsd.dk> <20031015152102.GB38522@nagual.pp.ru> <xzpn0c28dpe.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20031015203428.GA42399@nagual.pp.ru> <xzpismq8blw.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 22:55:23 +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > score MICROSOFT_EXECUTABLE 5.0 I already reject all executable attachments using sentinel. > score RAZOR2_CHECK 5.0 > score DCC_CHECK 2.5 When I play with SpamAssassin before, I use something like that. It not helps much since spammers tends to write completely new texts each time nowdays and obfuscate words to not much even fuzzy checksums. In any case, I don't want this discussion to turn into 'how to prevent current SPAM', I handle it well (99% rejected at the milter level, but 1% still is big enough). My point of view is: if spammer don't have my address, it can't do even 1%. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031015215907.GA43137>