Re: Spam and more spam

"John P. Looney" <valen@xxxxxxxxxx> 31 lines of wisdom included:
>  But, if a mail server can scan spam, and not sent it to 500 recipients,
> 100 of whom will scan it themselves, think of the rainforests you are
> saving.

That's not what I'm suggesting.

>  But loads and loads of them want it. They really do. So infrastructure
> will have to grow and scale to be able to deliver that.
> 
>  It will have to increase the price of delivering a mail service, but the
> value does go up.

AT SMTP LEVEL means the server rejects it, instead of bouncing it.
The difference is subtle. You cannot solve this problem by using IP
based traffic shaping rules, since spammers often use hundreds of
IPs, and it may not necessarily be a bombardment of spam that slows
down resources.

Believe me, this problem has been beat to death, unless you have
HEAVY system resources or some quite strange infrastructure, this
solution is not for you.

However, you were talking about scanning at server v.s. scanning at
client, whereas I was talking about scanning at smtp level v.s.
server scanning after acceptance.

Scanning at SMTP level is not practical in most cases.
-- 
Philip Reynolds                      | RFC Networks Ltd.
philip.reynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      | +353 (0)1 8832063
http://people.rfc-networks.ie/~phil/ | www.rfc-networks.ie
-- 
Irish Linux Users' Group
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug/