Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Christmas Gift for free] 50% Spam reduction !

To: Roger Walker <roger@rope.net>
Subject: Re: [Christmas Gift for free] 50% Spam reduction !
From: Andy Bradford <amb-1166294724@bradfords.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:33:06 -0700
Cc: qmail ML <qmail@list.cr.yp.to>
Comments: In-reply-to Roger Walker <roger@rope.net> message dated "Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:11:05 +0000."
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612232108470.21405@sprint.rope.net>
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
References: <3.0.6.32.20061222190856.00b84580@192.168.192.1> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612232108470.21405@sprint.rope.net>
Thus said Roger Walker on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:11:05 GMT:

>  This was tested a  while back by a local university  and it was found
> that the  optimum time was  a delay  of 30 seconds.  Unfortunately, it
> does not  take into account  that many high volume  LEGITIMATE senders
> will drop their connection if there  is even a short delay. Workopolis
> comes to mind, but there are others.

I've been  running what I mentioned  in my previous email  for well over
2  years  and  I  don't  think  I've  encountered  one  complaint  about
non-compliant servers having problems sending  email. If they did have a
problem, and were unable to resolve  the non-compliance on their side, I
could easily add their server IP to the tcprules.

Andy
--
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
 12:33pm  up 22 days, 17:30,  2 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>