On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:00 -0700, Craig White wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:41 -0700, kwhiskers wrote: > > I don't know why google/gmail isn't picking it up as spam. It is very > > successful withthe rest of it. > ---- > because it is an official bounce-back error type message. Servers do > what they are supposed to do by RFC. Actually, they're not. Proper bounces comes from <> (MAILER-DAEMON or equivalent), not some fictitious email address. These are not bounces, but invitations to register with their silly scheme. > Self defense dictates that we filter them to /dev/null using > procmail/sieve on the server, rejects on the server or mail filters in > your mail program. For those operating postfix MTA's, putting this into sender_checks.regexp: /\.sspam@xxxxxxxxxx$/ REJECT Antispam UOL SPAM not wanted here and using it with sender_access in an smtpd restriction will get rid of those emails without affecting anything else from that ISP. I'm sure sendmail and exim users can give a similar recipe. > Under the banner of a good offense makes a great defense, I proposed > some type of tar pit set up by a number of fedora users and within > minutes, the smtp servers at uol.com.br will be shut down and they will > investigate the issue. Tar-pitting isn't going to affect any sanely configured MTA. It is only good against bulk mailers. Cheers Steffen.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
