Problem with mail being rejected by friends!
Recently I have been getting phone calls that friends have been getting their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter. Anyone else getting this? -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net
Re: Problem with mail being rejected by friends!
At 10:24 AM 4/15/2005, Steven W. Orr wrote: Recently I have been getting phone calls that friends have been getting their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter. Anyone else getting this? Nope.. Perhaps you should check your mail logs and try to find out what rules are hitting the messages. Check for misfires of Dialup RBLs.. If that's happening, check your trusted_networks setting.
Re: Problem with mail being rejected by friends!
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote: their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter. Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming some poor sod who has been joe-jobbed. Discard spam. Don't add the to problem. -- Neil Watson | Gentoo Linux Network Administrator | Uptime 9 days http://watson-wilson.ca | 2.6.11.4 AMD Athlon(tm) MP 2000+ x 2
Re: Problem with mail being rejected by friends!
Neil Watson wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote: their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter. Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming some poor sod who has been joe-jobbed. Discard spam. Don't add the to problem. Hi, While this has been discussed before, I don't think rejecting spam at the smtp level is a bad idea, ie 551 - We think this is spam. How ever, bouncing spam after the smtp acceptance is a bad idea. Since most spam is coming either from infected PC's or spammers dsl connections, rejecting at the smtp level is usually not a bad idea. It also allows for legitimate email that is marked as spam to be returned to the owner, if you just make spam vanish to /dev/null you may find you have some very unhappy clients further down the road who are wondering where that letter from the Legal department is. Regards, Rick
Re: Problem with mail being rejected by friends!
Neil Watson wrote: Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming some poor sod who has been joe-jobbed. Discard spam. Don't add the to problem. The problem with discarding is that in situations like the one described the sender will have no idea the mail was not received. There's little problem with rejecting, as opposed to bouncing, messages that you think are spam. That means doing it during the SMTP session, before you accept the message. It will not usually result in messages to a joe-job victim, since spammers will not send bounces in response to a rejection. -- Keith C. Ivey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC
Re: Problem with mail being rejected by friends!
Rick Macdougall wrote: Neil Watson wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:24:47AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote: their mail rejected by sa. I have been adding whitelist entries like crazy but I really loathe having to disable spam rejection by spamass-milter. Rejecting spam is not a good idea. Most of the time you end up spamming some poor sod who has been joe-jobbed. Discard spam. Don't add the to problem. Hi, While this has been discussed before, I don't think rejecting spam at the smtp level is a bad idea, ie 551 - We think this is spam. How ever, bouncing spam after the smtp acceptance is a bad idea. Since most spam is coming either from infected PC's or spammers dsl connections, rejecting at the smtp level is usually not a bad idea. It also allows for legitimate email that is marked as spam to be returned to the owner, if you just make spam vanish to /dev/null you may find you have some very unhappy clients further down the road who are wondering where that letter from the Legal department is. Regards, Rick Not only that, but if Steve had been discarding spam, neither he nor his friends would have been aware of this problem.
