Simple Questions: "many" and locally-added header lines

Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com
Sat May 8 00:23:53 UTC 2004


> From: (Jim Seymour)

> Another question just occurred to me.  A bit of background: I'll be
> operating some relatively low-volume spamtraps.  All of them will
> end-up coming to the same point, here, get fed into my parsing code,
> and bits will go into the database.  The procmail recipe these well be
> coming to could as easily pipe the spams through dccproc, as my normal
> email does.  Would the additional checksum information thus-provided to
> the DCC servers' databases be useful?  Or would this just be extra load
> y'all don't need nor want?  It'll nearly all be guaranteed spam--either
> from seeded, but never used, email addresses, email addresses used in
> repeated dictionary attacks, once-valid email addresses that have been
> 5xx'ing for three years or better and have been re-cycled into
> spamtraps, etc.

At this point, I think the DCC sees most "mainsleaze," which is what
the DCC handles best.  More spam traps would increase the size of the
common database without improving effectiveness.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.