Tuning Fork

[outlier_lynn]

Okay. We will now try fine-tuning postfix. I've limited the number of processes that it can spawn. We will see just have "full" the queues get.

Sounds, though, like email will have to have it's own cluster by the time we load up the other domains.

I would so much like to bury spammers in a very special pit of hell.

Comments

[aeire.livejournal.com]

Does this mean I won't be getting as much spam? Because I've been getting more and more at that address lately - Thunderbird filters it and everything, but it's still kinda annoying.

[crazed-lynn.livejournal.com]

That's what it means. I moved my bethechange email to the new server a few weeks ago. I get one or two spam email messages as day on that address. I think it will go up a bit if I have to turn off greylisting, though.

[mayaknife.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Since you're running your own mail server...

Someone a while back came up with what I thought was a brilliant idea. He created a program which scans email as it is coming in on the SMTP connection. As soon as it identifies the email as spam, it goes into slow-motion mode where it takes a long time to give back acknowledgements and so forth. The result is that one of the spammer's ports is tied up for a long time trying to deliver that one email. And the beauty of it all is that if the email wasn't really spam, the user will still get it, eventually.

[crazed-lynn.livejournal.com]

I'd never get out of slow motion mode. We get roughly 100 spam for each legit email server wide.

Tieing up a spammer port doesn't do much these days. Most spam is sent from zombie networks of thousands of machines. It is no skin off the spammer's nose to have half his ports tied up.

The amount of spam would drop to nearly nothing if we could stop those damn zombie networks.

Don't you just love microsoft.