[SPAM-TAG] Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Another to whitelist
jeffc at surbl.org
Wed May 26 17:22:59 CEST 2004
On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, 3:16:45 PM, hans hans wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
>> Anyone else seeing any others to whitelist?
> We might have some when all the spamikaze users are tied together but I
> might come back on this in a later stage.
> Another point or remark. At the surbl site it is mentioned that sendmail
> isn't aware of bodies. This isn't true for part of your conclusion. It is
> possible to check the body in sendmail but the problem is dat you will
> have to fetch the data block to do it. Then again, not getting spam in the
> users INBOX might also help.
Yes, milters can be used with sendmail to block on message
bodies, but as you note it requires letting the data through.
On the other hand regular RBLs can be used by the MTA to reject a
lot of connections directly based only on headers. After passing
RBLs the bodies need to be checked, and doing that with an MTA
milter probably uses fewer resources than doing it in
SpamAssassin, for example.
> A little file to help understand the above:
> Reading the SubjMatchReject file will produce a 550.
> The good thing about it is that you will not block the ipnumber like the
> surbl goal is stated on the site. The bad thing is that spamming sites
> will keep pumping data to the mta.
Blocking on subjects is definitely interesting, but bodies
are where the spam sites typically are.
More information about the Discuss