From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Sep  5 19:06:15 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA14232
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14226
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA25329; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: A quick note to those without DNS resolvable mail hosts. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 06 Sep 1997 11:23:41 +0930."
             <19970906112341.62007@lemis.com> 
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 19:05:15 -0700
Message-ID: <25287.873511515@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I can't make up my mind yet whether this isn't overkill, but probably
> I don't get the level of spam you do.  I do see one big problem,

Can you say "up to 40% of an incoming day's mail before I did this?"
I thought so. :-(

> though: FreeBSD-questions.  A lot of the people out there either are
> complete newcomers to FreeBSD, or they lack the experience and
> understanding to comply with the new requirements.  A lot of them are
> AOL.  By implementing these measures, you may not kill -questions, but

I didn't say we were killing AOL.COM, I merely cited them as an
example of someplace people generally didn't want to be. :)

As I said, the highest ratio of rejection comes from blocking invalid
mail hosts and if these newcomer types have clueless admins or haven't
registered their boxes properly, well, "sorry, I guess" :-)

> I've taken a quite look at http://tech.gulf.net/spam/, and note that
> they have a list of blacklisted IP addresses as well.  Wouldn't that
> be an alternative to domain names?

Sure, but I think the biggest issue here is unresolvable host names -
changing this part of the equation won't have any effect on those
folks.


					Jordan