From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 27 15:06:27 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 6568C16A40D for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:06:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@pingle.org) Received: from willow.pingle.org (willow.pingle.org [208.149.144.13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2991F13C4DE for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:06:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@pingle.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by willow.pingle.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2E811477; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:33:14 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at pingle.org Received: from willow.pingle.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (willow.pingle.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h9EzTEN8qagB; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (josie.pingle.org [209.125.59.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jim) by willow.pingle.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D691144D; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:33:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45BB6296.1080106@pingle.org> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:32:54 -0500 From: Jim Pingle User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JoaoBR , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, rsmith@xs4all.nl References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701260924.59674.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 15:06:27 -0000 Roland Smith wrote: > 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. This conversation is getting rather OT for -stable, but I felt the need to ask a question: To defeat this, wouldn't a spammer just have to send out the same spam twice in a row from the same machines, spaced apart by a little time? Bonus for the spammer: accounts on servers without greylisting would get two copies of the spam. Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me that it's just another tool in the ongoing arms race against spammers. It may work for a while, but eventually they'll catch on and it will only cause unnecessary delays for legitimate mail. Jim