From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 27 14:57:24 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 84F6216A401 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:57:24 +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 0ECA813C48D for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:57:23 +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 l0REvL3B064625; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:57:21 -0200 (BRST) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) From: JoaoBR Organization: Infomatik To: Roland Smith , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:57:08 -0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701271257.09365.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: 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 14:57:24 -0000 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= =20 guys *are* coming back, greylisting is at the end the same only a little bi= t=20 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= =20 money and secondable if they don't come back from the same source they come= =20 back from another and either one might be spoofed so you can greylisting=20 yourself to death because sooner or later all sources are blacklisted or=20 you're rewriting continuously your whitelists and both are probably=20 unreliable at the end =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