On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 08:12 -0400, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
> Ramprasad wrote:
> > 
> > Why not SPF ??
> 
>       Over two thirds of the email I receive that is UCE/Spam has an 
> "SPF_PASS" associated with it from SA.  All SPF seems to do is make the 
> "stupid" spammers look more stupid.  The clever ones aren't affected.
> 
I have a script that automatically blocks SPF-pass domains sending spam
consistently. you could make good use of the SPF_PASS too. 


> > DK is a resource HOG. And I cant do that easily in postfix ,( I know you
> > will point to dk-milter )
> > 
>       http://jason.long.name/dkfilter/   ...  Postfix specific implementation 
> using the Sourceforge/ OpenSource adoptation of the DK standards.
> 
> > What is the point accepting the mail and the entire data and then
> > scanning for DK when It should have ideally been rejected after 
> > "mail from:"
> > 
> 
>       That would be the exact point of DK at the Postfix/ MTA level.
> 

How. All the while I thought dkfilter helps me block after dataend ? Do
I have to RTFM again ? 




> > So I let SA do the testing .. which catches the spams but eats resources
> > of my servers. When you receive 3-5 million mails a day you tend to
> > bother more about resources
> > 
>       I would humbly submit to you that if you move that much traffic, you 
> should be able to justify one more MX machine in the pool and implementing DK.
> 
We have 8 dual xeons already. for this much traffic. And servers are
always loaded with all kinds tests enabled in SA  


> > Thanks
> > Ram
> > 
>       Another point here is that SPF and DK are NOT mutually exclusive 
> technologies.  If a thirty-customer/ 10k message-a-day shop like me can 
> implement both, I am sure that a "Big Shop" like yours can.
> 

Reply via email to