diff -ruN Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-background.xml Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-background.xml --- Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-background.xml 2004-08-13 14:54:14.000000000 -0700 +++ Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-background.xml 2004-09-06 00:46:17.000000000 -0700 @@ -6,16 +6,17 @@ - Here we cover the concept of filtering mail during an incoming - SMTP transaction, rather than following the more conventional - approach of offloading this task to the mail routing and - delivery stage. We also provide a brief introduction to SMTP. + Here we cover the advantages of filtering mail during an + incoming SMTP transaction, rather than following the more + conventional approach of offloading this task to the mail + routing and delivery stage. We also provide a brief + introduction to the SMTP transaction.
- Why Filter Mail at SMTP Time? + Why Filter Mail During the SMTP Transaction?
Status Quo @@ -25,7 +26,7 @@ - If you receive computer viruses or other malware, raise your + If you receive computer virii or other malware, raise your hands too. @@ -55,13 +56,13 @@ - If you were standing before, the reason you may still be - standing is probably, well, ignorance. If you have been doing - any type of spam filtering, even by manually moving mails to the - trash can in your mail reader, let alone by experimenting with - primitive filtering techniques such as DNS blacklists (SpamHaus, - SPEWS, SORBS...), chances are that you have lost some valid - mail. + If you were standing before and are still standing, I suggest + that you may not be fully aware of what is happening to your + mail. If you have been doing any type of spam filtering, even + by manually moving mails to the trash can in your mail reader, + let alone by experimenting with primitive filtering techniques + such as DNS blacklists (SpamHaus, SPEWS, SORBS...), chances + are that you have lost some valid mail.
@@ -104,7 +105,7 @@ spam is by routing the mail through SpamAssassin or other software before it is delivered to a user's mailbox, and/or rely on spam filtering capabilities in - user's . + the user's . @@ -117,7 +118,7 @@ You can return a back to the sender. The problem is that nearly all spam and e-mail borne - viruses are delivered with faked sender addresses. If you + virii are delivered with faked sender addresses. If you return this mail, it will invariably go to innocent third parties -- perhaps warning a grandmother in Sweden, who uses Mac OS X and does not know much about computers, that @@ -139,15 +140,20 @@ - Depending on how your users access their mail (POP-3 - bad, IMAP good, web-based mail readers good), you may be - able to file it into a separate junk folder for them -- - perhaps as an option in their account settings. This - may be the best of these three options. Even so, the + Depending on how your users access their mail (for + instance, if they access it via the IMAP protocol or use a + web-based mail reader, but not if they retreive it over + POP-3), you may be able to file it into a separate junk + folder for them -- perhaps as an option in their account + settings. + + + + This may be the best of these three options. Even so, the messages may remain unseen for some time, or simply - overlooked as the receiver more-or-less periodically - scans through and deletes mail in their - Junk folder. + overlooked as the receiver more-or-less periodically scans + through and deletes mail in their Junk + folder. @@ -164,7 +170,7 @@ as the mail is being received by the inbound mail exchanger for your domain. This way, if the mail turns out to be undesirable, you can issue a SMTP reject - response, rather than face the dilemma described above. As a + response rather than face the dilemma described above. As a result: @@ -177,7 +183,7 @@ bandwidth and CPU processing. - + You will be able to deploy some spam filtering techniques @@ -191,12 +197,10 @@ You will be able to notify the sender in case of a delivery failure (e.g. due to an invalid recipient - address) without generating . At - least not directly. + address) without directly generating - - - + We will discuss how you can avoid causing collateral spam indirectly as a result of rejecting mail forwarded from @@ -222,10 +226,9 @@ - We will discuss some techniques you can use to protect - yourself against collateral spam from others (such as - bogus You have a virus messages from - anti-virus software). + You will be able to protect yourself against collateral + spam from others (such as bogus You have a + virus messages from anti-virus software). @@ -246,8 +249,8 @@ Some filtering techniques are more suitable for use during the - SMTP transaction others. Some are simply better than others. - Nearly all have their proponents and opponents. + SMTP transaction than others. Some are simply better than + others. Nearly all have their proponents and opponents. @@ -315,9 +318,9 @@ linkend="colspam"/>, they require special attention for mail sent from automated sources such as monthly bank statements, and they degrade the usability of e-mail as - people need to jump to hoops to get in touch with each - other. Many times, senders of legitimate mail will not - bother to or know that they need to follow up to the + people need to jump through hoops to get in touch with + each other. Many times, senders of legitimate mail will + not bother to or know that they need to follow up to the confirmation request, and the mail is lost. @@ -339,8 +342,8 @@ weeding out junk mail until all the world's legitimate mail is sent with a virtual postage stamp. (Though in the mean time, they can be used for the opposite - purpose - that is, to accept mail carrying the stamp, but - that would otherwise be rejected). + purpose - that is, to accept mail carrying the stamp that + would otherwise be rejected). @@ -360,10 +363,10 @@ of the SPEWS blacklist. One of the stated aims of this list is precisely to inflict as a means to put pressure on ISPs to - react on abuse complaints. Listing complaints are typically - met with knee-jerk responses such as bother your ISP, - not us, or get another ISP. + linkend="coldamage"/> as a means of putting pressure on ISPs + to react on abuse complaints. Listing complaints are + typically met with knee-jerk responses such as bother + your ISP, not us, or get another ISP. @@ -388,9 +391,9 @@ -
+
- Introduction to SMTP + The SMTP Transaction SMTP is the protocol that is used for mail delivery on the diff -ruN Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-considerations.xml Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-considerations.xml --- Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-considerations.xml 2004-08-01 23:27:34.000000000 -0700 +++ Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-considerations.xml 2004-09-06 00:50:52.000000000 -0700 @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ A situation where you may need multiple MXs is to perform load balancing between several servers - i.e. if you receive so much mail that one machine alone could - not handle it. Even if so, see if you could offload some + not handle it. In this case, see if you could offload some tasks (such as virus and spam scanners) to other machines, in order to reduce or eliminate this need. @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ Any SMTP server that is not listed as a public in the DNS zone of your domain(s) should not - accept incoming connections from the Internet. All incoming + accept incoming connections from the internet. All incoming mail traffic should go through your incoming mail exchanger(s). @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ each user to specify which hosts they want to whitelist, and then use such individual whitelists in a system-wide SMTP-time filtering setup? If the message is forwarded to several - recipients at your site (as may often be the true in the case of + recipients at your site (as may often be true in the case of a mailing list), how do you decide whose whitelist to use? diff -ruN Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-qanda.xml Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-qanda.xml --- Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-qanda.xml 2004-07-16 08:43:17.000000000 -0700 +++ Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-qanda.xml 2004-09-06 00:52:52.000000000 -0700 @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ linkend="dnsbl"/> that are fed from s. That is because the mandatory one-hour retry delay will give these lists a chance to - enlist the sending host. + list the sending host. diff -ruN Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-techniques.xml Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-techniques.xml --- Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/chapter-techniques.xml 2004-08-13 14:40:09.000000000 -0700 +++ Spam-Filtering-for-MX/chapter-techniques.xml 2004-09-06 01:42:43.000000000 -0700 @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ - Most spam and nearly all e-mail borne virus is delivered + Most spam and nearly all e-mail borne virii are delivered directly to your server by way of specialized SMTP client software, optimized for sending out large amounts of mail in a very short time. Such clients are commonly known as @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ In order to accomplish this task, ratware authors commonly take - a few shortcuts that, ahem, diverge a bit + a few shortcuts that, ahem, diverge a bit from the RFC 2821 specification. One of the intrinsic traits of ratware is that it is notoriously impatient, especially with slow-responding mail servers. They may issue the @@ -99,22 +99,22 @@ response. The issue is that some receiving hosts, particularly those that use Exim, may perform in response to incoming mail delivery attempts. If you or one of - your users send mail to such a host, it will contact the MX host - for your domain and start an SMTP dialogue in order to validate - your/his/her e-mail address. The default timeout of such s is 30 seconds - if you impose delays this - long, the peer's sender callout verification would fail, and in - turn the original mail delivery from you/your user might be - rejected (usually with a temporary failure, which means the - message delivery will be retried for 5 days or so before finally - returned to the sender). + your users send mail to such a host, it will contact the (MX host) for your domain and start an SMTP + dialogue in order to validate the sender address. The default + timeout of such s is 30 seconds - if + you impose delays this long, the peer's sender callout + verification would fail, and in turn the original mail delivery + from you/your user might be rejected (usually with a temporary + failure, which means the message delivery will be retried for 5 + days or so before the mail is finally returned to the sender). + In other words, 20 seconds is about as long as you can stall before you start interfering with legitimate mail deliveries. - If you do not like imposing such delays on every SMTP transaction (say, you have a very busy site and are low on @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ In my own case, selective transaction delays and the resulting SMTP synchronization errors account for nearly 50% of rejected - incoming delivery attempts. This roughly translate into saying + incoming delivery attempts. This roughly translates into saying that nearly 50% of incoming junk mail is stopped by SMTP transaction delays alone. @@ -206,12 +206,12 @@ Some indication of the integrity of a particular peer can be - gleaned directly from the Domain Name Service, DNS, even before - SMTP commands are issued. In particular, various DNS blacklists - can be consulted to find out if a particular IP address is known - to violate or fulfill certain criteria, and a simple pair of - forward/reverse (DNS/rDNS) lookups can be used as a vague - indicator of the host's general integrity. + gleaned directly from the (DNS), even + before SMTP commands are issued. In particular, various DNS + blacklists can be consulted to find out if a particular IP + address is known to violate or fulfill certain criteria, and a + simple pair of forward/reverse (DNS/rDNS) lookups can be used as + a vague indicator of the host's general integrity. @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ writing included in the SPEWS Level 1 list. Not wholly undeserved from the viewpoint that Comcast needs to more effectively enforce their own AUP, - but this listing does affect 30% of all US Internet users, + but this listing does affect 30% of all US internet users, mostly innocent subscribers such as myself. @@ -513,10 +513,10 @@ For that matter, my own experience indicates that - no legitimate sites on the Internet - present themselves to other Internet sites using an IP + no legitimate sites on the internet + present themselves to other internet sites using an IP address literal (the [x.y.z.w] notation) either. Nor should - they; all hosts sending mail directly on the Internet should + they; all hosts sending mail directly on the internet should use their valid . The only use of use of IP literals I have come across is from mail user agents on my local area network, such as Ximian Evolution, @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ Similarly, you can reject host names that contain invalid - characters. For Internet domains, only alphanumeric letters + characters. For internet domains, only alphanumeric letters and hyphen are valid characters; a hyphen is not allowed as the first character. (You may also want to consider the underscore a valid character, because it is quite common to @@ -546,7 +546,6 @@ Finally, if you receive a MAIL FROM: command without first having received a Hello greeting, well, polite people greet first. - Plonk. @@ -601,7 +600,7 @@ This check is a little more expensive in terms of processing time and network resources than the simple syntax checks. Moreover, unlike the syntax checks, a mismatch does not - always indicate ratware; several large Internet sites, such + always indicate ratware; several large internet sites, such as hotmail.com, yahoo.com, and amazon.com, frequently present unverifiable Hello greetings. @@ -782,7 +781,7 @@ This may seem obvious to most of us, but apparently this is a frequently overlooked consideration. Also, not everyone - may have a full grasp of the various Internet standards + may have a full grasp of the various internet standards related to e-mail addresses and delivery paths (consider percent hack domains, bang (!) paths, etc). @@ -1000,7 +999,7 @@ recipient address - the originator of the original message that triggered the notification. You can drop the connection if the address is - empty, but there are more recipients than one. + empty, but there are more than one recipients.
@@ -1104,7 +1103,7 @@ mail. For instance, one server or pool of servers may be used for immediate delivery. If the first delivery attempt fails, the mail is handed off to a fallback server - which has been tuned large queues. Hence, from such + which has been tuned for large queues. Hence, from such sites, the first two delivery attempts will fail. @@ -1132,7 +1131,7 @@ 451 response to the initial delivery. In the worst case, the sender host may not get around to retrying the delivery to the first exchanger for 4 hours, - or before the greylist triplet has expired, thereby + or until after the greylist triplet has expired, thereby causing the delivery attempt to be rejected over and over again, until the sender gives up (usually after 4 days or so). @@ -1209,7 +1208,7 @@ Various schemes have been developed for sender verification where not only the validity, but also the authenticity, of - the sender address is checked. The owner of a Internet + the sender address is checked. The owner of a internet domain specifies certain criteria that must be fulfilled in authentic deliveries from senders within that domain. @@ -1340,7 +1339,7 @@ SPF information is currently published for a number of - high-profile Internet domains, such as aol.com, + high-profile internet domains, such as aol.com, altavista.com, dyndns.org, earthlink.net, and google.com. @@ -1536,7 +1535,7 @@ Addresses presented in the message header (i.e. the To:, Cc:, From: ... fields) should be syntactically - valid. Nuff said. + valid. Enough said.
@@ -1664,7 +1663,7 @@ On the other hand, the (now obsolete) RFC 822 specification did not explicitly prohibit NUL characters in the message. For this reason, as an alternative to rejecting mails - containing it, you may choose to strip these characters off + containing it, you may choose to strip these characters from the message before delivering it to Cyrus. @@ -1705,7 +1704,7 @@ end with a period followed by any of a number of three-letter combinations such as the above. This check consumes significantly less resources on your server than , and may also catch new viruses for + linkend="virusscanners"/>, and may also catch new virii for which a signature does not yet exist in your anti-virus scanner. @@ -1757,7 +1756,7 @@ In situations where you are not willing to block all potentially dangerous files based on their file names alone (consider .zip files), such scanners are - helpful. Also, they will be able to catch viruses that are + helpful. Also, they will be able to catch virii that are not transmitted as file attachments, such as the Bagle.R virus that arrived in March, 2004. @@ -1770,10 +1769,10 @@ - Anti-virus software mainly detect viruses based on a set of - signatures for known viruses, or virus + Anti-virus software mainly detect virii based on a set of + signatures for known virii, or virus definitions. These need to be updated regularly, - as new viruses are developed. Also, the software itself + as new virii are developed. Also, the software itself should at any time be up to date for maximum accuracy. @@ -1859,13 +1858,13 @@ Most of the time, collateral spam is virus warnings generated by anti-virus scannersWhy on earth the authors of anti-virus software are stupid enough to trust the sender - address in a e-mail borne virus is perhaps a topic for a - closer psychoanalytic study.. In turn, the - wording in the line of these virus - warnings, and/or other characteristics, is usually provided by - the anti-virus software itself. As such, you could create a - list of the more common characteristics, and filter out such - bogus virus warnings. + address in an e-mail containing a virus is perhaps a topic for + a closer psychoanalytic study.. In turn, + the wording in the line of these + virus warnings, and/or other characteristics, is usually + provided by the anti-virus software itself. As such, you + could create a list of the more common characteristics, and + filter out such bogus virus warnings. diff -ruN Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/glossary.xml Spam-Filtering-for-MX/glossary.xml --- Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/glossary.xml 2004-07-27 03:06:09.000000000 -0700 +++ Spam-Filtering-for-MX/glossary.xml 2004-09-06 01:28:37.000000000 -0700 @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Bayesian word indexes are most certainly specific to the - language in which they receied training. Moreover, they are + language in which they received training. Moreover, they are specific to individual users. Thus, they are perhaps more suitable for individual content filters (e.g. in s) than they are for system-wide, SMTP-time @@ -112,6 +112,46 @@ D + + Domain Name System + + + (abbrev: DNS) The de-facto standard for + obtaining information about internet domain names. Examples + of such information include IP addresses of its servers + (so-called A records), the dedication + of incoming mail exchangers (MX records), generic server + information (SRV records), and miscellaneous text + information (TXT records). + + + + DNS is a hierarctical, distributed system; each domain name + is associated with a set of one or more DNS servers that + provide information about that domain - including delegation + of name service for its subdomains. + + + + For instance, the top-level domain org is + operated by The Public Interest Registry; its DNS servers + delegate queries for the domain name tldp.org + to specific name servers for The Linux Documentation + Project. In turn, TLDPs name server (actually operated by + UNC) may or may not delegate queries for third-level names, + such as www.tldp.org. + + + + DNS lookups are usually performed by forwarding name + servers, such as those provided by an Internet Service + Provider (e.g. via DHCP). + + + + + + Delivery Status Notification @@ -218,7 +258,7 @@ (a.k.a. FQDN). A full, globally unique, - Internet name, including DNS domain. For instance: + internet name, including DNS domain. For instance: www.yahoo.com. @@ -296,8 +336,8 @@ Imagine a mailing list where one of the subscribers is the address of the list itself. This situation is often dealt with by the list server adding an X-Loop: - header in the message, and not processing mails that already - has one. + line in the message header, and not processing mails that + already have one. @@ -415,7 +455,7 @@ - These are typically exploited by spammers and viruses, who + These are typically exploited by spammers and virii, who use them to conceal their own IP address, and/or to more effectively distribute transmission loads across several hosts and networks. @@ -448,7 +488,7 @@ Conversely, servers that still - exist on the Internet are almost exclusively exploited by + exist on the internet are almost exclusively exploited by spammers to hide their own identity, and to perform some load balancing on the task of sending out millions of messages, presumably before DNS blocklists have a chance to @@ -472,7 +512,7 @@ A machine that acts on behalf of someone else. It may forward e.g. HTTP requests or TCP/IP connections, usually to - or from the Internet. For instance, companies - or + or from the internet. For instance, companies - or sometimes entire countries - often use Web Proxy Servers to filter outgoing HTTP requests from their internal network. This may or may not be transparent to the @@ -496,7 +536,7 @@ Ratware - Mass-mailing viruses and e-mail software used by spammers, + Mass-mailing virii and e-mail software used by spammers, specifically designed to deliver large amounts of mail in a very short time. @@ -520,7 +560,7 @@ A machine that forwards e-mail, usually to or from the - Internet. One example of a relay is the + internet. One example of a relay is the smarthost that an ISP provides to its customers for sending outgoing mail. @@ -542,7 +582,7 @@ url="http://www.rfc-editor.org/">http://www.rfc-editor.org/: The Request for Comments (RFC) document series is a set of - technical and organizational notes about the Internet + technical and organizational notes about the internet [...]. Memos in the RFC series discuss many aspects of computer networking, incluing protocols, procedures, programs, and concepts, as well as meeting notes, @@ -551,7 +591,7 @@ - These documents make up the rules Internet + These documents make up the rules internet conduct, including descriptions of protocols and data formats. Of particular interest for mail deliveries are: @@ -613,12 +653,12 @@ A machine with an internet connection that is infected by a - mass-mailing virus or worm. These machines exclusively run - on the Microsoft® Windows® operating system, and are - almost always in residential IP address - blocks. Their owners either do not know or do not care that - the machines are infected, and often, their ISP will not - take any actions to shut them down. + mass-mailing virus or worm. Such machines invariably run a + flavor of the Microsoft® Windows® operating system, + and are almost always in residential IP + address blocks. Their owners either do not know or do not + care that the machines are infected, and often, their ISP + will not take any actions to shut them down. diff -ruN Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/impl-exim.xml Spam-Filtering-for-MX/impl-exim.xml --- Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/impl-exim.xml 2004-08-02 15:03:54.000000000 -0700 +++ Spam-Filtering-for-MX/impl-exim.xml 2004-09-06 01:22:16.000000000 -0700 @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ may create a file named to declare your own ACL for the RCPT TO: - command (see below). + command (see below). @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ A large number of expansion items are available, including run-time variables, lookup functions, - string/regex manipulations, host/domainlists, etc. etc. An + string/regex manipulations, host/domain lists, etc. etc. An exhaustive reference for the last x.x0 release (i.e. 4.20, 4.30..) can be found in the file spec.txt; ACLs are described in section 38. @@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ condition = ${if >{$message_size}{MESSAGE_SIZE_LIMIT}{true}{false}} - # Deny unless the address list header are syntactically correct. + # Deny unless the address list header is syntactically correct. # deny message = Your message does not conform to RFC2822 standard @@ -696,13 +696,13 @@ Selective Delays - If you are like me, you want to be a little bit more - selective about which hosts you subject to SMTP transaction - delays. For instance, as described earlier in this - document, you may decide that a match from a DNS blacklist - or a non-verifiable Hello greeting are not conditions that - by themselves warrant a rejection - but they may well be - sufficient triggers for transaction delays. + If you are like me, you want to be a little bit more selective + about which hosts you subject to SMTP transaction delays. For + instance, as described earlier in this document, you may + decide that a match from a DNS blacklist or a non-verifiable + EHLO/HELO greeting are not conditions that by themselves + warrant a rejection - but they may well be sufficient triggers + for transaction delays. @@ -1392,8 +1392,8 @@ Recent versions of Tom Kistner's - patch (see ) has native support - for SPF. + patch (see ) have native support + for SPF. Debian users: As of July 14th, 2004, the version of @@ -1523,13 +1523,13 @@ - Exiscan-ACL includes support for MIME decoding, and file - extension (you know, that three-letter - misnomer from the Windows world) checks. This check alone - will block most Windows viruses - but not those that are - transmitted in archives or those that - exploit Outlook/MSIE HTML rendering vulnerabilities - see the - discussion on . + Exiscan-ACL includes support for MIME decoding, and file name + suffix checks (or to use a misnomer from the Windows world, + file extension checks). This check alone will + block most Windows virii - but not those that are transmitted in + archives or those that exploit + Outlook/MSIE HTML rendering vulnerabilities - see the discussion + on . @@ -1948,7 +1948,7 @@ - Others, figger it out. + Others, figure it out. @@ -2164,7 +2164,7 @@ file .return-path-sign exists in the sender's home directory, and if the recipient's domain is matched in that file. For instance, if you send mail directly to over - the Internet to the final destination: + the internet to the final destination: # Sign the envelope sender address (return path) for deliveries to @@ -2610,7 +2610,7 @@ - If the sender host is found in one of these whitelist, we save + If the sender host is found in one of these whitelists, we save the word accept in $acl_m0, and clear the contents of $acl_m1, as described in the previous section on @@ -2880,7 +2880,7 @@ # $acl_c1, stall the sender until 20 seconds has elapsed. accept set acl_m2 = ${if def:acl_c1 {${eval:20 + $acl_m2 - $tod_epoch}}{0}} - delay = ${if >${acl_m2}{0}{$acl_m2}{0}}s + delay = ${if >{$acl_m2}{0}{$acl_m2}{0}}s @@ -2968,7 +2968,7 @@ # $acl_c1, stall the sender until 20 seconds has elapsed. accept set acl_m2 = ${if def:acl_c1 {${eval:20 + $acl_m2 - $tod_epoch}}{0}} - delay = ${if >${acl_m2}{0}{$acl_m2}{0}}s + delay = ${if >{$acl_m2}{0}{$acl_m2}{0}}s @@ -3258,7 +3258,7 @@ condition = ${if >{$message_size}{MESSAGE_SIZE_LIMIT}{yes}{no}} - # Deny unless the addresses in the header are syntactically correct. + # Deny unless the addresses in the header is syntactically correct. # deny message = Your message does not conform to RFC2822 standard diff -ruN Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/Spam-Filtering-for-MX.xml Spam-Filtering-for-MX/Spam-Filtering-for-MX.xml --- Spam-Filtering-for-MX-v0.16/Spam-Filtering-for-MX.xml 2004-08-13 15:01:52.000000000 -0700 +++ Spam-Filtering-for-MX/Spam-Filtering-for-MX.xml 2004-09-06 01:42:09.000000000 -0700 @@ -48,9 +48,18 @@ Technical Review + + + Tom + Wright + +
tom (at) maladmin.com
+ + Language Review + - Version 0.16 -- Final technical review + Version 0.17 -- Incorported Language Review anti-spam @@ -132,6 +141,15 @@ + 0.17 + 2004-09-06 + TS + + Incorporated language review from Tom Wright. + + + + 0.16 2004-08-13 TS @@ -509,7 +527,7 @@ The techniques described in this document predicate system - access to the inbound (s) for the Internet + access to the inbound (s) for the internet domain where you receive e-mail. Essentially, you need to be able to install software and/or modify the configuration files for the on that system. @@ -519,7 +537,7 @@ Although the discussions in this document are conceptual in nature and can be incorporated into a number of different MTAs, a sample Exim 4 implementation is provided. This - implementation, in turn, incorporate other software tools, + implementation, in turn, incorporates other software tools, such as SpamAssassin. See for details. @@ -713,7 +731,7 @@ - Issues that pertain to SMTP time filtering. + Issues that pertain to transaction time filtering. @@ -723,7 +741,7 @@ My attempt at anticipating your questions, and then - answer them. + answering them.