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