Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:57:08 -0200 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight Message-ID: <200701271257.09365.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:10, you wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > > 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 > > 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. you must see both sides, following your theory, spammers stay away but good guys *are* coming back, greylisting is at the end the same only a little bit less stupid than this anti-spam-send-and-ask-a-confirmation-mail things also that spammers don't come back is an illusion, firstable they do it for money and secondable if they don't come back from the same source they come back from another and either one might be spoofed so you can greylisting yourself to death because sooner or later all sources are blacklisted or you're rewriting continuously your whitelists and both are probably unreliable at the end -- 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?200701271257.09365.joao>