On Wed 05 Dec 2001 (17:10 +0000), Drav Sloan wrote:
> Jim Segrave wrote:
> > I think this addresses all the requirements, without embedding the
> > relay testing in exim (where it doesn't belong). It's a totally
> > separate process and can be tuned to meet requirements without
> > touching exim or its configuration.
>
> Thanks for that Jim, a good implimentation :) I'm interested to note
> you also prefer the checking as 'stand alone'. Is it purely the
> overhead and/or the delay we incurr at the time of 'checking'? Or is
> it more of a 'thats NOT what MTA if for?' principles?
>
> :)
It means that we don't tie up accepting mail while doing the
check. And that the checking is totally separate from the mail
handling so, when it goes horribly pear-shaped, we can stop it without
affecting smarthosting at all.
> > We'll still end up in ORBZ every once in a while, but it would reduce
> > the occurrence greatly.
>
> One of my big concerns (that and the amount of spam we are handling is
> forever increasing and is having impact on service; we do the best we
> can with policy we have laredy in place (we also use a blocked.nets
> which the abuse team maintain.
Yep - the database stops a first time spammer as soon as we see it's a
relay. We've had 6 hour spam sessions run through a dial-up when
no-one was around. If a spam test is run and fails on the host, then
we'd cut them off sooner (I hope).
--
Jim Segrave jes@???
