From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FC7138CCF for ; Mon, 11 May 2015 19:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 62B0EE08D0; Mon, 11 May 2015 19:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F100E08C7 for ; Mon, 11 May 2015 19:31:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D464340961 for ; Mon, 11 May 2015 19:31:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <555103A7.9030405@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 15:31:51 -0400 From: Michael Orlitzky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Anti-spam changes: proposal to drop spammy mail References: <20150511072901.GB15066@angelfall> In-Reply-To: <20150511072901.GB15066@angelfall> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5287f7db-652a-480c-bb55-efc5c0a3c462 X-Archives-Hash: 74cf6deb0d357d4d46d44d3a62bb8ac8 On 05/11/2015 03:29 AM, Eray Aslan wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 04:26:01AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> TL;DR: As of May 17, @gentoo.org will drop incoming spammy mail instead of >> delivering it. Speak now or hold your peace. > > Believe me I understand your pain. Been there done that. However, > dropping mail is never a good idea. You are mucking with the > dependebility of the email. Agreed. Is there some reason a pre-queue filter (with amavisd-new) wouldn't work? Then we could reject the spammy messages (at SMTP time) instead of silently dropping them.