Blccking spam . . .

I'm in the process of refining my header and body check files and have found that my spam
has been drastically reduced. Does the postfix community maintain a comprehensive list for
spamming domains and criteria?

-Chris

Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>>I'm in the process of refining my header and body check files and have found that my spam
>>has been drastically reduced. Does the postfix community maintain a comprehensive list for
>>spamming domains and criteria?
>
> I've recently installed ASSP - http://assp.sourceforge.net.
>
> I can't recommend it highly enough.
>

Uggh, I hate whitelist systems. I can't believe spammers have gotten us to the point where
we need to use whitelists, the arrogance is too much.

I'm not a fan of reducing smtp's convenience just because spammers will stop at nothing to
tell me about viagra or whatever else they're selling. I think my method is better. I've
gotten my spam count from 80/day to 3/day by using header and body checks. There are some
rules spammers need to abide by in order for them to deluge a mail system with garbage. I
prefer to stick to that game.

-Chris

Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>>Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>>> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>>>>I'm in the process of refining my header and body check files and have found that my spam
>>>>has been drastically reduced. Does the postfix community maintain a comprehensive list for
>>>>spamming domains and criteria?
>>>
>>> I've recently installed ASSP - http://assp.sourceforge.net.
>>>
>>> I can't recommend it highly enough.
>>>
>>
>>Uggh, I hate whitelist systems.
>
> So switch the whitelist part off. Is ticking a box so very hard? Reading
> the documentation obviously is.
>
>

I read the manual. Bayesian filtering is a bullshit answer, too. Technically, it may be
"neat", but its worthless after it's been reverse worked.

I used to use Spam Assasin with Postfix, and over the course of 6 months I saw its
effectiveness diminished to 50%. It makes more sense to keep the game simple instead of
creating clunky software for such a basic thing. No matter how hard spammers try, certain
constants will always be; a piece of spam has to have the domain name of the site that's
spamming (and, no, straight IP addresses for these sites are rare because most of these
sites want customers to be able to refer to them as http://www.drugsforyou.com and not
http://192.168.10.10.) In all, I've counted about 40 habitually offending domains.
I put those straight into my body_checks file. In the begining when I started
compiling this list it was tedious. Now, about 5 days later, the spam has gone from about
80 per day to 3. I share my list with other Postfix users I know so that they won't have
to go through the same trouble. We build on the lists and send them to each other.
Extremely simple, extremely effective.

Which leads me to my original post; whether or not the Postfix ccmmunity shares a
similar kind of list. It doesn't look like it.

-Chris

Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>>Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>>> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>>>>Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>>>>>>I'm in the process of refining my header and body check files and have found that my spam
>>>>>>has been drastically reduced. Does the postfix community maintain a comprehensive list for
>>>>>>spamming domains and criteria?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've recently installed ASSP - http://assp.sourceforge.net.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't recommend it highly enough.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Uggh, I hate whitelist systems.
>>>
>>> So switch the whitelist part off. Is ticking a box so very hard? Reading
>>> the documentation obviously is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I read the manual. Bayesian filtering is a bullshit answer, too. Technically, it may be
>>"neat", but its worthless after it's been reverse worked.
>>
>> I used to use Spam Assasin with Postfix, and over the course of 6 months I saw its
>>effectiveness diminished to 50%. It makes more sense to keep the game simple instead of
>>creating clunky software for such a basic thing. No matter how hard spammers try, certain
>>constants will always be; a piece of spam has to have the domain name of the site that's
>>spamming
>
> Thanks. I just needed confirmation that you had no idea what you're talking about.
>

Not a problem. It makes sense that you're concerned more with "talk" than results. Let me
know if you need some more straightening out and I'll take care of it for you.

-Chris

"User Chris" <chris@odin.kagadis.com> wrote in message
news:79mdnUPQQYlblC6iRVn-gg@speakeasy.net...
> Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> > User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
> >>Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
> >>>>Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
> >>>>>>I'm in the process of refining my header and body check files and
have found that my spam
> >>>>>>has been drastically reduced. Does the postfix community maintain a
comprehensive list for
> >>>>>>spamming domains and criteria?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've recently installed ASSP - http://assp.sourceforge.net.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't recommend it highly enough.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Uggh, I hate whitelist systems.
> >>>
> >>> So switch the whitelist part off. Is ticking a box so very hard?
Reading
> >>> the documentation obviously is.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I read the manual. Bayesian filtering is a bullshit answer, too.
Technically, it may be
> >>"neat", but its worthless after it's been reverse worked.
> >>
> >> I used to use Spam Assasin with Postfix, and over the course of 6
months I saw its
> >>effectiveness diminished to 50%. It makes more sense to keep the game
simple instead of
> >>creating clunky software for such a basic thing. No matter how hard
spammers try, certain
> >>constants will always be; a piece of spam has to have the domain name of
the site that's
> >>spamming
> >
> > Thanks. I just needed confirmation that you had no idea what you're
talking about.
> >
>
> Not a problem. It makes sense that you're concerned more with "talk" than
results. Let me
> know if you need some more straightening out and I'll take care of it for
you.
>
> -Chris

Hi Chris
I found this site, I currently use their access list in postfix, they have a
good head and body list
http://www.securitysage.com/guides/postfix_uce_av.html

Cortez

Cortez <cortez@corteznospamthekiller.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "User Chris" <chris@odin.kagadis.com> wrote in message
> news:79mdnUPQQYlblC6iRVn-gg@speakeasy.net...
>> Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>> > User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>> >>Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>> >>>>Huge <huge@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>> User Chris <chris@odin.kagadis.com> writes:
>> >>>>>>I'm in the process of refining my header and body check files and
> have found that my spam
>> >>>>>>has been drastically reduced. Does the postfix community maintain a
> comprehensive list for
>> >>>>>>spamming domains and criteria?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've recently installed ASSP - http://assp.sourceforge.net.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I can't recommend it highly enough.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Uggh, I hate whitelist systems.
>> >>>
>> >>> So switch the whitelist part off. Is ticking a box so very hard?
> Reading
>> >>> the documentation obviously is.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I read the manual. Bayesian filtering is a bullshit answer, too.
> Technically, it may be
>> >>"neat", but its worthless after it's been reverse worked.
>> >>
>> >> I used to use Spam Assasin with Postfix, and over the course of 6
> months I saw its
>> >>effectiveness diminished to 50%. It makes more sense to keep the game
> simple instead of
>> >>creating clunky software for such a basic thing. No matter how hard
> spammers try, certain
>> >>constants will always be; a piece of spam has to have the domain name of
> the site that's
>> >>spamming
>> >
>> > Thanks. I just needed confirmation that you had no idea what you're
> talking about.
>> >
>>
>> Not a problem. It makes sense that you're concerned more with "talk" than
> results. Let me
>> know if you need some more straightening out and I'll take care of it for
> you.
>>
>> -Chris
>
> Hi Chris
> I found this site, I currently use their access list in postfix, they have a
> good head and body list
> http://www.securitysage.com/guides/postfix_uce_av.html
>
> Cortez
>
>
Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. Much appreciated!

-Chris