Re: Discard Redux

This is a discussion on Re: Discard Redux within the mailing.postfix.users forums, part of the Mail Servers and Related category; On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 13:07 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote: > David Cary Hart wrote: > > It ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Mail Servers and Related > mailing.postfix.users

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-08-2005
David Cary Hart
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Discard Redux

On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 13:07 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> David Cary Hart wrote:
> > It would (IMHO) really be a good idea to provide a discard_rbl_client
> > facility. I would prefer not to reject from Korea and PRC blackholes
> > since that information allows them to list-wash. Furthermore, a discard
> > looks like a delivery which toys with some of the economics of spammers,
> > their affiliate programs and list vendors.

>
> FWIW I don't agree with your reasoning, David. I doubt they really are
> pruning their lists. And I object to giving my bandwidth to spammers.


I have a deal with Wietse. He doesn't teach managers how to sell stuff
and I don't write Postfix code. That said, I'm not entirely sure about
the difference in bandwidth and cycles for discard in contrast to
reject.
>
> Of course as they say on SPAM-L (which is where this discussion would
> more properly fit :) ) "your server, your rules." Still, I am curious as
> to why you think Korean and Chinese spammers would be doing this? ROKSO
> seems to indicate that most major spammers are from the USA, even those
> who happen to use Asian network resources.


I was using that as an example. IMO there are very few Korean and
Chinese spammers. I think that there is a mostly non-Asian spam
community using Korean and Chinese "bullet proof" hosting. Gillespie
(cheapbulletproof.com) recently started hosting spammers from the Czech
Republic. I DO believe that there are some rather well organized
operations that list wash. I also believe that there are well organized
operations that compile lists for resale. Discarding spam from known
bulk mailers and list compilers, IMO, deteriorates their efforts since
they are unable to know their real delivery rate.

With respect to Postfix, providing the facility at some point is a
function of both complexity and triage. I would not suggest that I could
appreciate either of those variables. I lack the coding skills and only
the developers can understand the priorities (which have always seemed
well organized). At some point, I suspect that it will be done.
--
Multi-RBL Check: http://www.TQMcube.com/rblcheck.htm
Kill Spam at the Source: http://www.TQMcube.com/spam_trap.htm
Today's Spam Trap Adds: http://www.TQMcube.com/BlockedToday
RBLDNSD HowTo: http://www.TQMcube.com/rbldnsd.htm
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0