On 11/21/19 2:57 AM, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Same as blocking an entire netblock or ISP because there are spammers within
this netblock or using this ISP (but there are "good" senders there as
well). Which is something a lot of email providers do, nevertheless.
Given that ab...@example.com yields close-to-zero results in many cases,
I tend to ACL netblocks. Now, there are only two reasons that I will
add an entry into my ACLs:
1) extortion e-mail
2) excessive probes on 22/TCP
This knee-jerk ACL insertion (at the edge, by the way) is tempered by
the country in which the netblock is assigned. The A list -- China,
India, and a couple others -- the netblock ACL goes in instantly.
Others I'll send *one* notice to abuse@xxx from ad...@satchell.net and
put the netblock on probation. If the abuse continues, they go into my ACL.
I let the DNSBLs take care of the run-of-the-mill spam, plus I segregate
spam that gets through into separate folders in my MUA. This shunts
most spam into bins that I can process when priorities allow, and not
dilute the "ham" in the traffic stream.
The Internet, as currently developed, is not designed for wide public
consumption. It assumed a BOFH was at each access point.
