 | | Re: SV: Complaint about change in spam controls of mailing lists
@ Red Hat | Re: SV: Complaint about change in spam controls of mailing lists
@ Red Hat 2003-04-22 - By Keith Winston
Back
Tom Diehl wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong BUT the problem with spamassassin is that the
receiving
> mail server still has to receive that garbage. I want a solution that does not
> waste any more of my resources than absoutly necessary. I am a big fan of
> rejecting spam based on it's source and NEVER having it delivered an any way
> shape or form. AFAIK the only way to accomplish that is through the use of
> header checks and RBL's. The more load I can put on the spam scum's servers
> the better.
While that would be ideal, RBLs are _not_ 100% accurate and neither are
header checks done by the MTA or spam filtering tools at any stage in
the process. So, unless you are comfortable with the possibility of
losing some of your e-mail (maybe something really important), an
after-the-fact filter is still probably the best solution. At least you
have the chance to review your spam before it is flushed, and save
something that you might never have seen otherwise.
Until SMTP is overhauled, there is only so much that can be done about
spam. Even as new anti-spam laws are passed, those laws are not
enforcable everywhere in the world. I'm afaid spam is going to be with
us for a long time.
Best Regards,
Keith
--
LPIC-2, MCSE, N+
Droplets of yes and no in an ocean of maybe
Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
Earn $52 per hosting referral at Lunarpages.
|
|
|