nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spamhaus...
From: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 20 Feb 2010 23:40:27 -0000
I don't know what your spam intake looks like but in mine, 5% to 10% can't be ranked "high confidence" until checked by an eyeball mark 1. In my system, that fraction is a candidate for a bounce...
In mine, it's a candidate for a rejection at SMTP time. I now do nearly all of my spam filtering during the SMTP session. There might once have been a reason to accept quickly and chew through the mail later, but these days it all needs chewing so you might as well do it right away. This has the huge advantage that you can reject unwanted mail after data with 550 FOAD rather than bouncing. R's, John
Current thread:
- Mail Best Practices and Documentation (was Re: Spamhaus...), (continued)
- Mail Best Practices and Documentation (was Re: Spamhaus...) Larry Sheldon (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... William Herrin (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Larry Sheldon (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Michael Dillon (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Larry Sheldon (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Larry Sheldon (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Joel Jaeggli (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Larry Sheldon (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... William Herrin (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... John Levine (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... William Herrin (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Paul Vixie (Feb 22)
- Re: Spamhaus... Rich Kulawiec (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... William Herrin (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... James Hess (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Rich Kulawiec (Feb 24)
- Re: Spamhaus... William Herrin (Feb 24)
- RE: Spamhaus... Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 21)
- RE: Spamhaus... Tomas L. Byrnes (Feb 21)