Michael Moyse wrote:
It does because
a) I never expect to receive email from anyone in Mexico
why not setup a list of senders you expect to get mail from and reject
anybody else? that would be far more effective (you don't even need to
use SA).
what about people who travel? should they keep important/urgent infos
until they get back or should they call at night?
I recommend that you travel there and get some friends. you'll
appreciate the country, get new friends and possibly stop using
inadequate anti-spam measures.
b) The domain vitalmex.com.mx is blacklisted not the host so I never
have to see or filter anything from that domain ever again. Why waste
processing time on it?
Damn it I might even block the entire IP range and domain for Mexico.
we are not after maximizing the size of blocklists. we are after
reducing spam rate while still keeping email as usable and beneficial as
it used to be.
In the present case, a uribl test is enough and is effective, since it
targets the spam customer, thus attacking the goal of spam, not its
methods. spammers can use a lot of tricks, relays, ... and battling
against this has proven a hard race, but they need to get us
shop/visit/... their customers. so uribl (coupled with a spamtrap to
detect new uris) is both effective and fair.
