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. >
