>| And I do want to return a 4XX code because this
>| is where message are probably spam - but may not be - and I want the
>| non-spam to try again. I'm counting on the spammer email to go away.
>
>I think you're misunderstanding Marc's point, Marc. The ACL snippet
>you posted doesn't show you deferring the first bad address, it shows
>you accepting it. Presumably you catch it with a later deny (why
>would you *accept* an invalid recipient?), but why not make the warn
>you showed a deny instead?
>
>- Fred
>
>
>
Yes - I accept the first one - at this level. The spam filter then
blocks it if it is spam. If the recipient is invalid it's not going
anywhere.
The point here is all ablout reducing load. Not really catching new
spam. It's to slow down spammers who are hammering the system. So this
isn't about accuracy. It works like greylisting with a twist. With
greylisting everything new is delayed. I don't do that. What I do is if
someone sends a spam - or something that is suspicios - it show down
their access with delays.
--
Marc Perkel - marc@???
Spam Filter: http://www.junkemailfilter.com
My Blog: http://marc.perkel.com
My Religion: http://www.churchofreality.org
~ "If it's real - we believe in it!" ~
