<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: OT: offending sig + headers



On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:49:03PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Now, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on either of these 
> methods (though I acknowledge both their strengths and weaknesses)... 
> but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black here?
> 
> I mean, you have two potential sources of irritation for "people who 
> legitimately want to send you mail" (however you wish to define 
> "legitimately"):
> 
>     1. A challenge message demanding proof that you're not a spammer
> 
>     2. A refusal to give you a valid email address, and a glib retort
>        to thank the spammers
> 
> And one of these is supposed to be less irritating than the other? 
<SNIP>

Ok, you made me laugh!

FYI, greylisting doesn't work like that. There's no need (mostly) to
manually intervene. The system I'm using (OpenBSD's spamd) *temporarily*
rejects mail from an unknown server. Real, normal servers will keep it
queued and retry shortly. If retries follow behavior specified in RFCs
then the server is whitelisted, automatically.

-- 
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
dwchandler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation