On Wednesday 08 March 2006 12:23, Craig White wrote: >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 And I'm gonna bite back here a wee bit Craig. uol.com.br obviously hasn't got a quarter to call somebody who cares, so I'm not the least bit bashfull to say that anything from uol.com.br, goes to /dev/null as soon as procmail recognizes it. I don't even look for the antispam in the left half of the address. Since we can't force them to fix it any other way but to effectively black hole the jerks, but thats likely not going to be effective until all the mail servers in the world do likewise, which if I had my way would happen yet today. In the meantime I don't have to read anything from them. They certainly aren't going to reform and start sending out a new version of the 419 are they? Their users might, but in that event its one less of those I delete while I'm looking for SA FP's. Which I might add are getting fewer and farther between. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
