On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Ladislav Bodnar wrote: > On Friday 25 April 2003 12:03, Res wrote: > > > Postmasters) find an acceptable way of reducing spam without killing so > > > many broadband users. > > > > We do, you have hit last resport status. > > There is a direct correlation between a percentage of successfully blocked > spam and a percentage of legitimate mail that didn't get through. > > Now let's be honest about it - how much time does it take you to implement > those lovely anti-UCE measures? And every time you implement a new one, don't > you notice that a more clever spammer still finds a way around it? So there > goes a new round of configuration changes - until next time... It's an > endless battle. Lets see, implimentation upon all mail servers about 2 minutes total. Compared with at least 2 minutes per phone call per irate customer or 30 secs for each email complaint, multiply that by 2 % of your userbase that typically get so pissed off they feel the need to tell you about it.. I think ive saved a couple of man hours. > No offense but, a postmaster who decides to block a whole range of IP > addresses because one or two spammers in that range spam your mail server is > a lousy sysadmin (if I were your boss, you'd be gone by now). Unless of > course your mail server exists for other purposes than business. oh i dont block on 1 or 2, more like 1 or 2 hundred, but again if the ISP's of these brain dead morons pulled their finger out of their @$$ and acted upon complaints then their would be NO need to block an entire ISP, why should we just let our users get spammed because some clueless twit of a sysadmin at another ISP CBF cleaning up his/her network? When you block an entire domain, people tend to call their isp and whinge, the ISP soon takes notice and gets their act together. -- -Res lns01-wick-bne> ipfirewall addb reject all from aol.com to 0
