Ping John Geoffrey (17 Nov 2016 17:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping tmr0195@xxxxxx (17 Nov 2016 17:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping Graham Donald (18 Nov 2016 00:56 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping David Shaw (18 Nov 2016 07:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping shadow@xxxxxx (19 Nov 2016 01:00 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping shadow@xxxxxx (19 Nov 2016 01:00 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping Bruce Johnson (19 Nov 2016 02:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping Kurt Feltenberger (19 Nov 2016 02:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping Tim (19 Nov 2016 08:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] Ping Jeffrey Schwartz (19 Nov 2016 15:07 UTC)

Re: [TML] Ping Tim 19 Nov 2016 08:11 UTC

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 02:21:16AM +0000, Bruce  Johnson wrote:
> Now you can comprehend some of the issues running a mail server for a College of Pharmacy :-)
>
> Fortunately we have Barry.
>
> Barry rocks.

Where I work, we just discontinued trialling a well-known mail filter
for a very similar reason -- our organization's name contains a major
spam red flag, and the vendor's response in addressing the enormous
number of false positives was less than stellar.  I'll check whether
they are acquainted with "Barry".

Slightly more on topic, I'm generally of the opinion that actual
X-boat spam is not overwhelming, since at least some of the published
material states that messages through that network are not close to
free.  That escalates both the costs and the risks, while the
interstellar separation of the recipients diminishes the returns.

Now, messages of local origin injected into the local system in such a
way that they look like interstellar mail seems likely and could be a
conduit for much more fruitful scams.

- Tim