Mailing List Message #15333
From: billc <>
Subject: Re: spamtrap irregularity?
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:53:24 -0500
To: SIMS Discussions <>
At 3:18 PM -0400 9/6/06, allan wrote:

In this case, had the spamtrap address not been designated in the router, it would have, at least, counted toward a tempban. In this example, the spamtrap did no good, therefore, and had a negative effect. Your observation that "SIMS does know about
them, they're defined in its routing table" is technically true but, surely, one would think that sending email to a spamtrap address justifies a tempban as much a simply sending to a nonexistent address. More, if  you ask me.

I think it is useful for users to recognize this characteristic of the spamtrap mechanism in SIMS and consider whether it makes sense to use it.

While the discussion is interesting technically and you *may* figure out how to change some of the settings via manipulating the resource or data forks of SIMS, remember that it is after all well beyond end-of-life as far as Stalker is concerned.  So if there's a bug or inconsistancy, it's probably not going to change.

Along with Christopher Bort's arguments, tempbanning or lack thereof may have to do with the order in which SIMS evaluates incoming mail. It's quite possible that SIMS checks the spamtrap list earlier, then goes on to other evaluations which would result in tempban.  If spamtrapping beats it to the punch and terminates the connection without ever making further evaluations (which would be the sensible thing to do - no real need to tie up processor time once you've decided to reject) then the tempban trigger would not have a chance to trip.

Bill Christensen

Green Building Professionals Directory: <>
Sustainable Building Calendar: <>
Green Real Estate: <>
Straw Bale Registry: <>
Books/videos/software: <>
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster