From: Michel B. <mi...@bo...> - 2005-04-29 06:05:44
|
Le Jeudi 28 Avril 2005 16:25, Michael Storz a =E9crit : > Conclusion: > > The way how table from_awl ist automatically filled after one successfu= l > retry helped this spammer to circumvene greylisting for a large amout o= f > spam emails. This only shows that greylisting isn't by itself the miracle solution tha= t can=20 block all and every kind of spam. But there is no single solution that ca= n=20 block all spam. OTOH, SQLgrey proves very highly efficient for a large proportion of spam= ,=20 with a very low system resources usage -- compared to other anti-spam=20 solutions -- which is already excellent. > Now the question for me is, if for a site like us, the use of a table > connect_awl as the first awl would not be better (connect_awl =3D table= with > triple ip, originator, recipient). > > >From this table the from_awl would be filled by a propagation algorith= m What would be the goal ? Have a shorter entry lifetime in connect_awl tha= n in=20 from_awl ? > similar to the one from from_awl to domain_awl. At the end most of the > entries in the from_awl would be the originators of mailinglists. All > other entries would stay in connect_awl. But I'm not sure it would be a good idea. Most users won't mind if=20 mailing-lists emails may be delayed for a while, but on the contrary, mos= t=20 users find extremely important that mail they receive from "real humans"=20 should not be delayed unless necessary, most of the times. Users will tell that even if they receveive messages from Mr. Jones only = once=20 a week or so, they definitely don't want Mr. Jones' mail to be delayed ea= ch=20 and everytime. So Mr Jones' entry should go to from_awl quickly, and from_awl should=20 definitely not be reserved to MLs that transmit zillions of emails... Cheers. --=20 Michel Bouissou <mi...@bo...> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E Appel de 200 Informaticiens pour le NON au Trait=E9 Constitutionnel Europ=E9en: http://www.200informaticiens.ras.eu.org |