Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:18:52 +0100 From: peter@bsdly.net (Peter N. M. Hansteen) To: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight Message-ID: <87ac074537.fsf@thingy.datadok.no> In-Reply-To: <200701250828.50540.joao@matik.com.br> (JoaoBR's message of "Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:28:50 -0300") References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <87ps93poqg.fsf@thingy.datadok.no> <200701250828.50540.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> writes: > all this methods are certainly useless, stay calm ok I fully sympathize with your need to rant, but in this context most of what you say is really quite beside the point. Please read what the material at the links provided actually says. > 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, Blocking entire subnets is generally not useful, and unmaintained blacklists are worse than useless. Which exactly is why I advocate using spamd in pure greylisting mode, possibly supplemented with aggressively maintained blacklists such as Bob Beck's traplist and potentially with local greytrapping. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ "First, we kill all the spammers" The Usenet Bard, "Twice-forwarded tales" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87ac074537.fsf>