On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:20, Ben Scott wrote: > Personally, I also find these kinds of strategies very rude. You're > increasing *my* mail server's load because *you're* not willing to > implement a proper anti-spam solution. Don't be a jerk about your > mail system. That makes you part of the problem -- not much better > than the spammers.
How about if we're both increasing each others' mail server loads in an effort to combat spam? At what level is that worthwhile? When I first turned on greylisting I saw about a 60% drop on false-negatives everywhere. Now it's down to about 40%. If you're seeing 10 spams a day, seeing 4 the next day is rather impressive. Personally I was of the opinion that I'd be happy for my mail server to queue for a few more minutes if I'm helping you out in a major way. > Mostly, though, I'm against these kinds of things because they are a > doomed strategy. If enough people start doing it, the spammers *will* > adapt. They've already started doing so for greylisting-- modern > botnets follow proper SMTP retry protocol, or so I've read. Doesn't that pretty much define every anti-spam technique short of per-sender whitelisting? WTTW: they still haven't figured out to generate proper hostnames in SMTP introductions...postfix has a rule to check this. -Bill ----- Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/ Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
