Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:10:52 +0100 From: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> To: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight Message-ID: <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701260924.59674.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about bandwid= th=20 > consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase bandwidth= =20 > consumption and resources on both sides Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request. That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase bandwidth consumption. Roland --=20 R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFu11sEnfvsMMhpyURArllAJ90jGssvAVqls/Yb+ThkmtwJTRtWQCfbeG/ +a/ZlPFp46ycZMFPmK7opE4= =Mlmf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070127141052.GA96039>