internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
- To: InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:06:10 -0400
on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:58:04AM -0400, David Minton wrote:
> On 6/12/03 2:31 PM, "Steven Champeon" <schampeo AT hesketh.com> wrote:
>
> > 4) sendmail rulesets - started bouncing all mail sent direct from a
> > dialup,
> > cable modem, or DSL line using 100+ different patterns.
>
> I've been considering doing this as well. What is everyone's opinion on
> blocking incoming mail from dynamic IP ranges? There are probably
> Internetworkers running mail servers at home off residential class broadband
> access. Is it reasonable to bounce your mail in an effort to reduce SPAM
> hitting my mailbox?
Some shaky stats, from one of our servers:
Today, so far: 40 out of 61 rejected messages came from dynamic IPs.
This week: 1437 of 5832 rejected messages came from dynamic IPs.
So far, we've had two complaints from people whose mail was blocked. The
reason the today numbers are 66% of total is that I've been adding more
rulesets over the past few days. Still, blocking between 25% and 66% of
spam is worth it to me. If you want to run a mail server on your cable
or DSL line, I should think it'd be worth getting the rDNS fixed so it
doesn't look like a cable or DSL line.
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam
, (continued)
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Tom Boucher, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Victor Minton, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
zman, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/08/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Michael Winslow Czeiszperger, 06/09/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Beckett, 06/09/2003
- Re: [spam score 5/10 -pobox] Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, burnett, 06/09/2003
- Re: [spam score 5/10 -pobox] Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Michael Winslow Czeiszperger, 06/09/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
zman, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Victor Minton, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Tom Boucher, 06/08/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Gregory Woodbury, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Gregory Woodbury, 06/13/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam, Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
[internetworkers] spam headache,
Michael Best, 06/16/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] spam headache, Steven Champeon, 06/16/2003
- [internetworkers] oh great!, Shea Tisdale, 06/17/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
David Minton, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
-
Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam,
Steven Champeon, 06/13/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.