Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:14:02 +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: <20070127151402.GB96846@slackbox.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200701271257.09365.joao@matik.com.br> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <200701271257.09365.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--98e8jtXdkpgskNou Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:57:08PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > 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 incre= ase > > > 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. >=20 > you must see both sides, following your theory, spammers stay away but go= od=20 > guys *are* coming back, greylisting is at the end the same only a little = bit=20 > less stupid than this anti-spam-send-and-ask-a-confirmation-mail things Greylisting makes use to the features of the SMTP protocol that spammers usually don't bother to implement, because it would make their programs more complicated and would decrease their delivery rate considerably. > also that spammers don't come back is an illusion,=20 According to http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/whitepaper.html it's not an illusion. > firstable they do it for=20 > money and secondable if they don't come back from the same source they co= me=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 Read the abovementioned whitepaper. And remember that there is no silver bullit against spam. Greylisting, SPF, spamfilters etc. all have their place and use. 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) --98e8jtXdkpgskNou Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFu2w6EnfvsMMhpyURAoBhAKCRwfYmZjdpBHbA33w2mHRK95b8iACfTm9P No6ss/e0axXj0BhB4ioCej8= =i6eU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --98e8jtXdkpgskNou--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070127151402.GB96846>