Spam Control Considered Harmful
jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net
Wed Oct 29 05:55:37 UTC 1997
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
> I personally do spam filtering for our site. Actually, it's not "spam"
> filtering per se. If you don't have a domain in the from addr which resolves,
> your mail is rejected. If you are not a customer of ours and try to relay mail
> off our servers, your mail is rejected.
> This to me seems completely just. Why should you send mail with a false return
> to address and why if you are not my customer should you send mail?
These are standard features to most sendmail anti-spam/anti-relay patch
sets. Now, what about blocking mail if it's passed to you by a host that
has no in-addr.arpa record? I've recently started doing this on a few
systems since I've found that some spam providers (either because they
move too frequently, don't want to be resolved, or just don't have a clue)
don't have reverse DNS.
I'm blocking several hundred messgaes/day per system and get log entries
sendmail: Ruleset check_relay ([220.127.116.11], 18.104.22.168)
rejection: 418 obtain a hostname
So far, I've gotten no complaints, so I assume nearly all the mail that
can't get in is junk mail.
> Now, filtering based on hostname & blackholing is a bit extreme. It limits the
> user's right to choose. As long as the commercial soliciter has a valid
> reply-to address which you can use to bitch and complain, then I feel it's
What about valid (i.e. resolvable) from addresses that are invalid for
mail delivery? i.e. if you get a lot of spam, surely you've gotten
messages from who knows where, claiming From addresses like
897632 at aol.com. Sendmail rules will resolve that, but email a complaint
there, and it's likely to bounce. I've not figured out a sendmail rule
for blocking such mail from: addresses.
Jon Lewis <jlewis at fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
Florida Digital Turnpike |
______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
More information about the NANOG