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

Vernon Schryver
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

More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact by mail or use the form.