On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:26:05PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > There may be and will be valid emails affected. So tagging gives your users
> > the ability to decide themselves (they'll most likely have a nice web
> > interface, for us they don't have shell access) what to do with these mails.
> And they will never understand what you are talking about. but they'll
> complain about the spam they get.
Most users will never enable such a function because of not understanding it.
> > The patch just introduces the ability to tag mails. It does not change
> > qmail-ldap's "normal" behaviour. You can for example block all hosts in
> > outputs.orbs.org (via ~/control/rbllist) and only tag all mails in
> > dialups.mail-abuse.org (via ~/control/rbltags). It is you decision what to
> > do with these tagged mails, bouncing, just deleting or whatever.
> I posted this more to learn some other point's of view about this issue.
> I currently use rblsmtpd, a separate package which is inserted between
> tcpserver and qmail-smtpd and which rejects smtp connection from rbl sites.
And breaks SSL.
And is totally unneeded for qmail-ldap as this feature is builtin.
> I just looked into my logs and saw i today rejected two connections from
> hostnames who don't reverse-resolve and whois to .com.co (in bogota)
> and a shoe manufacturing company in china.
> Tell me those were not spammers...
You don't know without reading their mails.
> yesterday i had 11 rejected connects from 9 different sites, just 3 of them
> having a reverse lookup to some obscure companies.
obscure for you, maybe very important for your clients.
They should fix their servers of course, but you cannot simply filter
something for your customers if they don't want it. Tagging introduces the
possibility to decide this on a per user rather than a per server basis. The
overhead is small.
> Currently i get about 5 double bounces a week, but i have just about 600
> customers; these double bounces are usually some mails with a bad Return-Path
> sent to no longer existing addresses.
So. we have more customers and i get less double bounces. This discussion
brings has no target.
> Not accepting the message with an error code as soon as the recipient
> is sent (the message body not yet) also is much faster and makes much less
> traffic;
not significant compared to the total mail traffic. Processing power is no
issue on mail servers (at least as long as such crap as virii scanners arent
running).
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
http://www.bsws.de | Germany
