From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jul 25 22:44:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA15762 for current-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pandora.hh.kew.com (root@kendra.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.53.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA15757 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by pandora.hh.kew.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA02854; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:44:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Drew Derbyshire Message-Id: <199707260544.BAA02854@pandora.hh.kew.com> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: bouncing mail from sites without a valid MX/A record Cc: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > From: Tony Kimball > As I understand it, you are only bouncing mail which cannot be replied > *through* a valid MX or A. I'm guessing that you could probably > construct a valid address from the various "Received:" headers in many > such cases, though. > > I suppose this will help to reject casual spam, but it seems to me a > misdirected effort, since most spam, particularly the large-volume > stuff from the pros, will not get filtered in this way. The only > way I can see to do that is to maintain a large kill list. Actually, this nukes about ~ 20 - 60 % of the SPAM off the top. Sites don't like their good name used by spammers, so many SPAM generators just generate random all number domains in .COM. So yes, it works, and get used to it.