Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:58:46 -0200 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight Message-ID: <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701260924.59674.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 27 January 2007 02:16, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Fri, 2007-Jan-26 09:24:58 -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > >like I said, for my understandings firewall implemention for spam fighting > > is wrong > > > >because you reject the message > > Except that the original mail was talking about greylisting. This won't > reject any mail sent from a MTA that correctly implements SMTP. According > to the SMTP specs, I am perfectly at liberty to tell you that I can't > accept your mail right now, please try again later. greylisting does not necessarily catch incorrectly implemented SMTP but basicly catch any source not seen before with a correct greeting unless it is whitelisted then, spam is not necessarily incorrectly implemented SMTP and can be an absolute correct email message (within SMTP specs) which then btw is rejected so the question is, if this is a correct way to handle it, rejecting I mean also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about bandwidth consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase bandwidth consumption and resources on both sides -- Joćo A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200701271058.47517.joao>