Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 11:28:09AM -0500, Michael Czeiszperger wrote:
> 
> On Dec 12, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Cristobal Palmer wrote:
> 
> > gmail tagged this as spam. I wouldn't have noticed the email if
> > somebody else hadn't mentioned it.
> >
> > Take that however you like.
> 
> Speaking of having things you want to read tagged as spam, from a  
> business perspective the spam problem is making it practically  
> impossible for me to communicate with customers via email.  Its  
> hugely annoying to have to follow up every email with a phone call,  
> but the stats I just looked at this morning show that just about 10%  
> of the email I send out actually arrives, so then I'm forced to  
> either write a letter or call on the phone.  Wat the &@(#&# is  
> holding up a solution to this?

Do you always send out through securesites.net? I know I likely wouldn't
accept mail sent directly from your host, with its generic rDNS and RFC
1918 bracketed IP HELO, but that's likely just your local node and if
you're using a smarthost or securesites.net's MTAs, I dunno why anyone
would be grading your mail as spam. Sadly, lots of very bad antispam
solutions exist, and it's difficult for an end user to know which ones
to trust. Content-based solutions, in particular, are badly misdirected.

My take is that most of the spam we see comes from botnets on
compromised Windows machines on consumer broadband, or behind NATs at
corporations. We use this to judge whether or not to accept mail from
such hosts based on their naming (and their HELO, and various hundreds
of other factors). Works very well.

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2553 w: http://hesketh.com/
antispam news, solutions for sendmail, exim, postfix: http://enemieslist.com/
rambling, amusements, edifications and suchlike: http://interrupt-driven.com/