Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC29D9FBEE9 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:15:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64454-07 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:15:54 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-254.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366AA9FB63F for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:15:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (201-221-217-243.bk12-dsl.surnet.cl [201.221.217.243]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l58GFsYf004895; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 09:15:55 -0700 Received: by perhan.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B3E932A28; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:15:51 -0400 (CLT) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:15:51 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: various spam Message-ID: <20070608161551.GL9071@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <20070608143339.GC17144@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <4669794C.6030307@commandprompt.com> <20070608155036.GN17144@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <46697C05.5080408@commandprompt.com> <20070608160404.GO17144@phlogiston.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070608160404.GO17144@phlogiston.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.5, clamav-milter version 0.88.5 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:15:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/26 X-Sequence-Number: 12065 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Is there not some standard keywords within the post that we can block? > > We're already getting sort of bitten by this; so I'd sort of prefer > not. If these messages don't set off whatever antispam system we've > in place (and we must have one, because I don't see _that_ much spam > in the stuff I have to moderate), then I think the processing will be > too costly. I don't think this is worth the trouble. It took me 20 seconds to reject the first 5 messages, and another 10 seconds to reject the following 5. And I didn't even care to check whether some of these were already rejected by someone else (the replies from Majordomo told me that some were), because it was pretty obvious that they were not valid for these lists. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4 Management by consensus: I have decided; you concede. (Leonard Liu)