Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}

[Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>]

--On Monday, October 09, 2006 17:29:23 -0400 Tim 
<tim-forensics () sentinelchicken org> wrote:

> > Its purpose is to reject *all* mail from bogus MTAs - dialups,
> > misconifigured servers, MTAs that aren't registered in the domains' DNS
> > as  a "legal" MX, MTAs that don't reverse properly, etc., etc.  If the
> > email is  forged in any way, it will never make it to DATA.
>
> That's great, except it makes the internet more expensive for the little
> guy.  If you're trying to run a non-spamming personal mailserver off of
> a consumer DSL or cable line, you can get screwed by others' policies
> like this because you may not have control over your PTR records or how
> your ISP lists you as a non-MTA with other organizations.
>
> Sure, argue that the little guy should just shell out for a better line,
> but if he could, he wouldn't be the little guy.
It wouldn't hurt to actually read how it works before criticizing it.

Policyd-weight (the name implies what it does) provides a weighted score to 
each "bad" thing an MTA does.  The *cumulative* score is what matters.  It 
also *subtracts* points for good things that an MTA does.  So, the 
situation you describe should not be a problem.

If you want to test that, send a test message to geek () stovebolt com, and 
see if it gets rejected.  If it does, look at the headers to see what it 
did.

Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Attachment: _bin
Description: