On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 16:28 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote: > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 16:02, Craig White wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 15:55 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote: > > > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 14:37, Anthony Messina wrote: > > > > Mike McCarty wrote: > > > > >I'm getting them again. > > > > > > > > > >Mike > > > > > > > > Postfix client access file: > > > > > > > > uol.br.com REJECT Your anti-spam configuration creates more spam; \ > > > > please fix it. > > > > > > Not all mail from uol.br.com is spam - I do get genuine mail that I want > > > to keep, so my procmail recipe just says > > > > > > :0 > > > > > > * ^From: .*Antispam > > > /dev/null> > > > > > > I never see them unless I look through the logs. Of course it does mean > > > that they are downloaded before being dropped, but that's no big deal for > > > me. > > > > ---- > > no it's not a big deal for you and probably effective but I would > > suggest that you recognize it is that type of behavior you are employing > > that you are rebelling against...receiving messages that are summarily > > sent to the giant bit bucket in the sky and the 'proper' way to handle > > is to reject them at the outset. > > > > Obviously this simplifies things since mail to abuse@xxxxxxxxxx goes > > unanswered and that is probably the larger crime but all in all, it's > > bad form to simply bit bucket mail that you have received (though most > > of us do that now). > > OTOH I don't clog up the Internet with messages that no-one wants. ---- and sell it as a premium service on top of that too! ;-) seriously though, I know you run your own smtp server and I am trying to point out to you that procmail is probably the wrong place to bit bucket stuff like this. The better place is to reject it at the smtp server and thus, you won't have to run it through spamassassin/anti-virus/procmail etc. and also, by rejecting it at smtp server, at least the sender has a chance to find out what happened to the email, whereas when you bit bucket it, very few clues are left behind. Craig
