On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:14:46 +0300, Liviu Daia wrote:
>On 25 September 2007, RW wrote:
Yep, you could. BUT
1- why let it get to postfix? This is crap that spamd can deal with,
with a bit of scripting help for extra functionality.
2- What concurrency?
We had a mailstorm of backscatter from hundreds of IPs each trying to
send one or two messages. We had over a thousand IPs marked TRAPPED in
spamdb at one time. Postfix would just be rejecting them and filling
its logs.
As far as I'm concerned filling the logs of mailservers that are
backscatter generators is A Good Thing .
In the beginning was The Word
and The Word was Content-type: text/plain
The Word of Rod.
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki | Re: 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 |
| Ingo Molnar | Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: Data corruption issue with splice() on 2.6.27.10 |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
