Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> On 04/08/2012 05:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyway, what I've been seeing lately has all had X-pg-spam-score 3.5 or
>> more, which is what made me suggest that moderating on that basis would
>> improve matters.
> any chance you can provide us with some pointers to these kind of mails,
> I don't really have the bandwidth to follow that many lists and I don't
> think I have seen one coming by on the lists I actually read regulary...
There's been about one a day lately on pgsql-admin --- go to the
archives page and look for [no subject]. I see a few on pgsql-general
as well. And I saw one today that broke the usual pattern of empty
subject, confirming my fear that the spammers won't be that dumb for
long:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-04/msg00227.php
(although this one looks different enough that it might be a different
spam engine than what's been plaguing us lately)
> One important point to note is that only ~2% of our rejects are actually
> based by heavy-style contentfiltering (based on SA and clamav) the
> remaining 98% are getting dealt much earlier in the pipeline and using
> much lighter weight stuff.
Actually, the only reason I'm complaining is that the PG lists are so
well filtered that I do no additional filtering here. If I were to let
loose my normal spam filters on the list traffic, I'd never see these
(nor, I fear, a lot of valid traffic). So this is the price of success:
people expect perfection ;-)
regards, tom lane
