From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 19 19:33:09 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD46816A418 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.com) Received: from mail.wcborstel.com (www.wcborstel.com [82.93.93.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A7613C4D1 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.com) Received: from mail.wcborstel.com (localhost [10.0.0.2]) by mail.wcborstel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B366A4335CE; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:33:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.wcborstel.com (Postfix, from userid 58) id 6E9AD4335CD; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:33:26 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on mail.wcborstel.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from [10.0.1.26] (unknown [10.0.1.26]) by mail.wcborstel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5CE4335CA; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:33:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <476971EF.909@wcborstel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:33:03 +0100 From: Jorn Argelo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Crist References: <20071216185050.GB26535@brahma.susmita.org> <9cc0a3fa1d403f16f4fc9b2abb49fb75@mail.wcborstel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: girishvenkatachalam@gmail.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (postfix) SPAM filter? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:09 -0000 Eric Crist wrote: > On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Jorn Argelo wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:20:50 +0530, Girish Venkatachalam >> wrote: >>> On 14:48:35 Dec 15, Jorn Argelo wrote: >>>> Greylisting only works so-so nowadays. There was a couple of months it >>> was >>>> very effective, but that is long gone. Spammers aren't stupid, and >>>> they >>>> follow the development of anti-spam techniques as much as e-mail >>>> admins >>> do. >>>> Greylisting is a start, but from my experience it is not nearly >>>> enough. >>>> >>> >>> I have heard this said elsewhere too. >> >> Yes don't rely solely on greylisting unless you're a lucky guy and >> don't get a lot of spam. > > > I hear a lot of people saying that greylisting doesn't work, when I > have actual numbers for my network proving it does. These numbers are > from the first week of May 2007 to today: [snip] I'm not saying it doesn't work. As a matter of fact, we're making effective use of greylisting as well. With spamd you can see the sender address and the HELO for example, so you can make nice scripts of trapping forged e-mail addresses, incorrect HELO commands, empty sender addresses, stuff like that. Just the greylisting process itself is only working so-so in our environment. All I'm saying is that greylisting is a start and not a solution :) But like I said, YMMV. Jorn