[PLUG] Spam rejection

Russ Johnson russj at dimstar.net
Fri May 10 20:10:52 UTC 2002


At 12:16 PM 5/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>In the past few days since I got postfix running my spam
>level has dropped almost to zero. The ones coming through are single users
>(probably dialup) spoofing the domain name but coming through aol.com,
>yahoo.com and hotmail.com.

Lucky you. :) I get anywhere from 8 to 25 spams per day. Even though I'm 
rejecting unknowns and using rbls. Spamassassin catches it, but I'd rather 
reject it at the door... :)

>   I thought that the header_checks and body_checks would take care of these
>one-off types of spammers. That is, that the key words they tend to use
>would be trapped by one or the other of those lists.

Hmm, I just found a header_check.txt file on the net that looks to be up to 
date. http://infinitejazz.net/will/geek/header_checks.txt

>   What is the advantage of regularly updating access.db versus tuning the
>*_checks files?

Looks like they do very similar jobs. Probably not to bad of an idea to 
keep both up to date.


Russ Johnson
http://www.dimstar.net


Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.
                 -- Oscar Wilde






More information about the PLUG mailing list