Re: Spam & GCI

We (Alaska Power and Telephone) pretty much had no choice but to
whitelist GCI due to the massive amount of false positives that spamcop
blocking generated.

Leif is right, monitoring what your users send is a huge task and is
almost impossible with any real effectiveness.

I agree that filtering before the message is accepted (read milter) is
very powerful but I don't think GCI is using sendmail.

This is why I don't care for MTAs that accept the message before any
processing is done (qmail, exchange, etc.)

Virus scanning before the message is accepted is especially cool because
viruses a stopped at the edge which greatly reduces double bounces.

schu

Leif Sawyer wrote:
> Dee writes:
>
>>Need I say more ? Leif ?
>>
>>http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=208.138.130.81
>
> C'est no moi.
>
> The problem is that customers are sending spam through, which gets
> reported and treated as if it were relayed (which, it was) through
> an open server (which it is not)
>
>
> Practically every ISP deals with this, I'm sure. And even if they're
> enforcing authentication for every mail, all that does is give them
> more 'meat' to go after the infringing customer.
>
> We do go after the infringers -- in fact, yesterday there were at
> least 8 folks shut off for spamming. I've got a couple packet-caps
> for the evidence file.
>
>
> But I don't have anything to do with the mail systems. Although
> I did report this to them yesterday.
>
> :-)
>
> -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
> -- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
> -- File: smime.p7s
>
>
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Tue Apr 20 14:44:51 2004