On Fri 2007-02-23 08:16:48 -0800 Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:33:00PM +0000, David Hart wrote: > > On Thu 2007-02-22 12:57:34 -0500 Greg Folkert wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 16:38 +0000, David Hart wrote: > > > > On Thu 2007-02-22 10:33:34 -0500 Greg Folkert wrote: > > > > > > > I can't see any advantage in scanning during smtp connect time. > > > > By the time you've got the DATA you've used up the bandwidth and might > > > > as well accept it. > > > > > > Not really, I've got usage data dating back to Sasser. Significantly > > > lower bandwidth once I started using scanning and reject at SMTP time. > > > > > > In fact today... just to see, I disabled SA-Exim. I've quadrupled the > > > amount of bandwidth My COLO provider has seen my machine use. > > [snip] > > > > I must be missing something here. In order to scan an email you must > > receive the email (I don't mean accept). How can rejecting/accepting > > emails at this stage make any significant difference in bandwith used > > (let alone a quadrupling of bandwidth)? > > isn't it just using RBL's at smtp time and rejecting before recieving > the mail?
AFAIU no, but that's the way I do it with postfix. Both my primary and secondary MXs do RBL checks and stuff like recipient validation and then make the accept/reject decision after the RCPT TO: but before the DATA. Greg Folkert said that he uses SA-Exim (which calls spamassassin) to do scans at smtp time but without any online checks. I don't see how you can do this without receiving the bulk of the email. -- David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
