From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 27 12:59:06 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E13B16A400 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:59:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1605913C4A3 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:59:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from anc ([200.152.88.34]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l0RCwxUL056181; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:59:00 -0200 (BRST) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) From: JoaoBR Organization: Infomatik To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:58:46 -0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701260924.59674.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:59:06 -0000 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 fighti= ng > > 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=20 basicly catch any source not seen before with a correct greeting unless it = is=20 whitelisted then, spam is not necessarily incorrectly implemented SMTP and can be an=20 absolute correct email message (within SMTP specs) which then btw is reject= ed 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= =20 consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase bandwidth=20 consumption and resources on both sides =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br