always seeing a Fuz2, etc. count of 1, no server name in X-DCC- header

Chris Aseltine
Thu Apr 15 03:57:46 UTC 2010

"Vernon Schryver" <> writes:

> Perhaps that was not the unintended meaning, but your "how is it useful?"
> comment felt like a standard threat to take your business elsewhere.
> I try take such treats in good grace from paying customers, but
> often lack patience in other situations.

It wasn't that at all.  In fact, if you can believe it, it meant just the
opposite.  More like a negative proof:  "I know the software *is* useful,
however it is appearing to behave as if it were not, therefore I must
conclude that I am using it incorrectly" ... or something like that.

> Checking your junk-mail file amounts to running it through your manual
> or mental spam filter.  If your junk-mail file gets only 1 or 2 messages
> per day, false postives are probably not a worry.  If it gets 20/day,
> not to mention the more than 1200/day that were rejected for my mailbox
> in the last 14 days, then false positives in any manual filter should be
> a concern.  (Years ago I gave up checking my junk folder (really dccm
> logs) except with `grep` when someone reports a false positive or for
> various tests.)

In my case it's gone up and down over the years.  I've had the same email
address since about Dec-97 and my junk-mail file has 2,476 messages since
March 19th (last time I archived it).  I find this to still be manageable

>> 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.
> If your Perl script doesn't reject during the SMTP transaction as well
> as log the message body, then it doesn't duplicate dccm.
> In 2004 in
> you wrote
>   "For me, the fuzzy checksums stopped being effective months ago"

Ahh ... so I've been complaining for six years now, right!?  I remember
switching over to greylisting after that, and it being successful too for
quite awhile, then I moved primarily to DNSBL's....

As for the DCC graphs, believe me, I checked them right away when I was
getting all Fuz2=1's, because again, if the effective rate "system-wide" is
50-75%, and it's not working for me at all, then I figured something must be
wrong with my setup.  But...

Maybe it will work better for 419's?  Those seem to get through DNSBL's the
most (for me) and they tend to lack 'customizations', for of course, they
would render the message unreadable (well, moreso than they already are...)


More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact by mail or use the form.