rbls in sendmail

[Ken Anderson]

Kai Schaetzl wrote:

> Ken Anderson wrote on         Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:34:10 -0700:
> 
> 
>>Well, since we relay mail around a bit ourselves, some comes through
>>postini, some comes from webservers in other locations, it's rarely the
>>last place the mail was that is of concern. It's often the first relay
>>the spammer hit, or the one just before they hit postini.
>>
> 
> 
> Anyway, it doesn't make sense to reject mail based on the Received
> headers, it just puts the burden on another spam victim. Either reject to
> the delivering machine because you don't like it or use SA for filtering
> out based on other criteria.
> 

A milter doesn't have to reject. It can take a variety of actions.
In cases where a server is on the sbl-xbl or SURBL, I'd probably want to 
  redirect(quarantine) or just log and /dev/null it, which is what would 
happen if I let it through to SA anyway, so I'm just looking to save cpu 
cycles, not reject or tempfail it.

Ken A
Pacific.Net




> Kai
> 
> --
> 
> Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
> Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
> IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
> 
>