From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 25 11:11:48 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CDCB16A400 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:11:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from therion@ninth-art.de) Received: from mail.coruscant.info (coruscant.coruscant.info [88.198.12.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC17013C45D for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:11:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from therion@ninth-art.de) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.coruscant.info (Postfix) with SMTP id 28E3A3CC548 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:13:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.coruscant.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39FC93CC547; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:13:08 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at coruscant.info Received: from mail.coruscant.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.coruscant.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bj4KefaZuoxn; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:13:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.2.4] (p508B4E91.dip.t-dialin.net [80.139.78.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.coruscant.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D1E3CC4AF; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:13:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45B8906F.7000807@ninth-art.de> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:11:43 +0100 From: Georg Bege User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061027) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JoaoBR References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <87ps93poqg.fsf@thingy.datadok.no> <200701250828.50540.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <200701250828.50540.joao@matik.com.br> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 OpenPGP: id=5717E214; url=http://www.ninth-art.de/files/therion.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Thu Jan 25 12:13:08 2007 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 1.0000 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0023 X-DSPAM-Signature: 45b890c4896261974110222 X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, From*ninth+art.de>, 0.40000, N+M, 0.40000, References*<8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784, 0.40000, spam, 0.40000, spam, 0.40000, but, 0.40000, but, 0.40000, Received*(localhost+[127.0.0.1]), 0.40000, still+get, 0.40000, just, 0.40000, generated+by, 0.40000, greylisting, 0.40000, greylisting, 0.40000, all+>, 0.40000, made, 0.40000, Received*localhost, 0.40000, Received*localhost, 0.40000, >+spam, 0.40000, Received*dialin.net, 0.40000, be+very, 0.40000, X-Virus-Scanned*new, 0.40000, based+method, 0.40000, or, 0.40000, or, 0.40000, methods, 0.40000, never, 0.40000, never, 0.40000 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: therion@ninth-art.de List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:11:48 -0000 Woah you just made my day Saying dspam or greylisting is useless ;) I hope you mean that by ironic - no you cannot block 100% spam but 99.99% effectivly which I already do even productive. But not with sendmail (who is using sendmail these days?) cheers JoaoBR wrote: > On Thursday 25 January 2007 04:08, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: >> For purposes of making the subject less true, setting up greylisting >> with an optional tarpit for known baddies can be very effective. See >> Dan Langille's recent Onlamp article[1] or for that matter my tutorial[2] >> for how this is done using PF and spamd - this way it doesn't matter much >> which MTA(s) you use. >> >> [1] http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2007/01/18/greylisting-with-pf.html >> [2] http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/, with the specifics of spamd and >> greylisting starting at http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/spamd.html > > > all this methods are certainly useless, stay calm ok > > the only way to block spam really is blocking any incoming tcp:25 ... > > any firewall based method you may use do block innocents as well, ike some do > they block entire IP ranges from countries because most spam comes from them, > that is stupid, more brainless since the spam mostly is not generated by any > of this servers, it only goes through it, this method might cause *you* not > getting this spam but does not stop spam at all ... > > probably better, if you like firewall blocks, cutting the complete US IP > address space from sending to any tcp:25 to stop spam definitly, because I > never heard of chinese or african viagra hahahaha > > spam block list abviously are very usefull so long as they are maintained > > IMO a good way and probably the best way is to do some inicial checks like > connection rate and limit them, then a spam checker like spamassassin for > regex and header checks > > still you get SPAM and you never can block spam 100%, spammers change servers, > IPs, patterns faster then we can react, but we all know this right? > > and even then if you get it all into your box you still get spam by whom sends > it out without caring of identity or hiding it, a correct email msg but spam > > where spam needs to be catched is at the origin, ISPs should take care of this > problem by not permitting access to outside servers but only passing through > their smtp gateways, an outgoing spam check is what needs to be done but > here nobody cares ... > -- Georg 'Therion' Bege http://coruscant.info http://www.ninth-art.de therion@ninth-art.de GnuPG-Key-ID: 0x5717E214 FingerPrint: A8EC B4B2 C9A9 483B CC87 56EE 07A1 C78E 5717 E214 !DSPAM:45b890c4896261974110222!