Thu Apr 15 02:17:15 UTC 2010
"Vernon Schryver" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >> Okay, so, ... are you just hypothesizing that the spam in question was >> sufficiently 'customized' to evade even Fuz2? I guess I could accept >> that, but all of my junk-mail is showing Fuz2=1. I would expect at least >> some of them to show up as bulk. Otherwise how is the program useful? > > If you don't find dccm useful, then please remove it as soon as possible. Dude, c'mon. Why you got to be like that? Anyway, point taken and I will leave this alone. > First, why are you hitting both Spamhaus ZEN and the CBL? > Isn't the CBL included in ZEN? Why pay your own delay, bandwidth, > and processing expenses and cost the CBL for the unneeded check? My mistake, I did not see "CBL" at http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/ as one of the four logos listed. Plus, cbl.abuseat.org is at another domain so I thought it was something else. > Why was that message not rejected during the SMTP transaction? I don't know. You gave (of course) lots of good reasons to do so. I guess you just have to believe me that I check my junk-mail file regularly. Unfortunately I can't whitelist my mom because she's also at newsnation.com and spammers impersonate her. (wait, I could use DKIM...) > If I were using your set of blacklists, I would have wired them > through `dccm -B`. Agreed, although I don't think this option existed when I first started using DCC (2004?) and I developed my own Perl script for doing the same. I'm sorry for duplicating the functionality.
More information about the DCC