|
Save the teapot fund New CSS web design for Wibble proudly provided by Kelv. Please contact the webmaster with any questions or concerns. |
Wibble > List archives > postfix > 2004 > September [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: abused webmail
Perhaps could you limit the number of accounts that can be created from an IP address within a given time period, or I've seen sites that when you signup have a picture with a random number "hidden" in it to work around automated signups.. I don't know what more you could do (probably digressing a little here but I'd be interested what others would suggest), but I would say that if you allow spam but try to limit the rate rather than stop the spammers you will end up blacklisted which tends to not be good for business plans :-) good luck with whatever you do! Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-postfix-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-postfix-users@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Pavel Urban > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 6:08 PM > To: John Groseclose > Cc: postfix-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: abused webmail > > > John Groseclose wrote: > > At 6:28 PM +0200 9/1/04, Pavel Urban wrote: > > > > Let's see. > > > > You're allowing anyone to go create a new account, then use > it to spam, > > and you're worried more about limiting the rate of the > outbound spam > > than verifying user information for those people signing up for the > > accounts and preventing them from signing up for multiple accounts? > > > > I'll bet that within a short period of time your > mailservers appear on > > most of the DNSBLs on the planet. And that, IMNSHO, would > be a good thing. > > > > Well, my personal opinion is that freemails should be > eliminated without > mercy, but I have to live with business plans of our company. > BTW, how > should I 'verify' user information or 'prevent' them from creating > multiple accounts? But anyway, I'll try to persuade marketing guys to > limit account creation to our IP pools. > > Thanks for your opinion, anyway. > > P.U. >
|