---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On Tuesday, 21 November, 2017 09:06, Peter Da Silva
<peter.dasi...@flightaware.com> wrote:
>On 11/21/17, 9:59 AM, "sqlite-users on behalf of Keith Medcalf"
><sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org on behalf of
>kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote:
>> If you run an RFC complaint MTA then there is really very little
>problem with SPAM at all -- I have many connections per second
>rejected for RFC non-compliance -- and get maybe 3 SPAM messages per
>day, all of which originate from the crappy Johhny-cum-lately
>freemail systems
>So. taronga.com is a high profile spam target thanks to my using it
>for Usenet posts for years. Like, at one point in the ‘90s I got so
>much spam that it blew out my bandwidth limit and I got charged an
>overage, just for receiving handshakes and dropping spam on the
>ground.
Yeah, I used to be in the UUCP maps as well, way back in the olden days.
>I tried being aggressively OCD about RFC compliance and found I was
>missing mail I actually needed. Like, from lawyers and similar stuff
>that had real world consequences.
I simply tell those people that they either (a) fix their systems or (b) use
snail-mail. Takes care of the problem entirely.
>So I went back to using a combination of multiple layers of filters
>and a greylist front end. Oh, and blocking all of China and
>Argentina.
I use a couple of blacklists. Oftentimes the same malefactor that happens to
be sending spam is also running ssh probes and other miscreant malicious crap.
Getting blacklisted by me means you are blacklisted and get dead air. I do
return appropriate ICMP "administratively denied" notifications, but other than
that, they can bugger off entirely.
>Still get a lot of spam that Apple Mail’s Bayesian filter takes care
>of. Mostly.
I do not let the stuff in in the first place, so there is nothing much to
filter. This makes it much easier.
>Still too many false positives. I switched to gmail for mail I
>actually really needed to get. I was spending too much lifetime
>dealing with mail issues.
And that is the major difference I suppose. I consider that there is no such
thing as a "false positive". Either the sending MTA is a properly configured
RFC compliant Internet host with a properly configured MTA, or I do not want to
accept communications from it. If it is properly configured *AND* it is not on
any of the blacklists that I use (only some of which are spam related -- as I
said there is a huge cross-over between dirty spammers and dirty crackers) then
I will accept the message. Otherwise, not only do they not get to send
messages, they will likely be "administratively prohibited" from communicating
at all on any port for any reason whatsoever. And that is THEIR problem to
address, not mine.
Just as there is a modern propensity for the re-labelling of "impersonation" as
"identity theft" in order to lay blame and inconvenience on the person
impersonated instead of where it belongs (as a natural consequence of the law)
on the "impersonator" and the relying party who made the "mistake", pretending
that the recipient is somehow required to receive, read and obey whatever some
idiot sends is an inversion of the natural order of things and is delusional
(on the part of both parties).
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
