Multi (split) image spam

[Scott Silva]

Andrew MacLachlan spake the following on 5/7/2007 2:09 PM:
> Thanks Ed - That was my take as well.
> To be fair, I can see both sides of the argument, however I consider greylisting to still be an essential tool in the fight against spam. As always there are many different implementations and each has it's pros and cons.
> I have yet to see the perfect greylist implementation, but there has been some good work done by someone in Japan who modified postgrey so that it would only greylist dynamic addresses (determined by regex). Although this is nowhere near perfect it is certainly a step in the right direction (and should keep Res happy as well as his mailservers would be unlikely to be hit.) by adding some intelligence to the default postgrey implementation - which is a fairly blunt  -yet effective instrument.
> 
> No reply earlier to this to avoid a flame war which is never a good look!
If you just reject mail from dynamic ip's unless it is authenticated roaming
users, you will be better off. I still think that if you need a mail server,
you need a static address or a smarthost that is on one.
There is no good reason (IMHO) besides the costs to try and serve mail from a
dynamic IP, unless your ISP will not sell or rent you a static address. When
we upgraded from a SDSL circuit to a T1, we went from a /24  block to to a /19
block at each site. I didn't ask for the 64 addresses, they just didn't want
to split the block any smaller. And they gave me the reverse mappings also, so
I can't complain.
-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!