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

Re: OT: offending sig + headers



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday, May 17 at 03:05 PM, quoth Darrin Chandler:
>> 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.

Ah, you're right, I was confused.

My only objection to greylisting (aside from the inherent delay that 
it introduces into email) is that it's one of these anti-spam measures 
that only work until it gets widespread enough for spammers to decide 
to do something about it (they own enough always-on Windows spam-bots 
after all, it's not like they're too short on resources; not retrying 
is just laziness on their part). Very much like all the other 
anti-spam measures that rely on spammers violating the SMTP RFCs in 
one way or another (for example, the early-talker method (aka. "banner 
delay")).

BUT, that doesn't mean I won't use 'em myself for as long as they stay 
useful (I use a banner delay), so I can hardly fault you for it. But 
let's not pretend these are better "anti-spam" techniques than they 
really are.

~Kyle
- -- 
A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.
                                                  -- Chuckles the Clown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iD8DBQFGTT/ABkIOoMqOI14RAgfXAJ0Qn9W/SM3i9XciN2EtA269y4xjFgCgiL/P
MvmZJn4xHBhbkU8fbl/HWBU=
=J2/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----