On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > How about if we're both increasing each others' mail server loads > in an effort to combat spam?
Hmmmm. I guess my issue is that you're deciding to increase my load to help you. I don't get a vote. All I can do is respond in kind, by increasing your load to help me. >> I'm against these kinds of things because they are >> a doomed strategy. If enough people start doing it, the >> spammers *will* adapt. > > Doesn't that pretty much define every anti-spam technique short of > per-sender whitelisting? Not really. The problem with things like greylisting and nolisting is they're a quick-fix. All it takes is an adjustment by the spammers and we're back to square one. Game over in one move. There are lots of anti-spam methods that spammers can try to counter, but which they can't simply switch off. They can dodge blacklists, but they can't make blacklists totally ineffective by a software change. They can try to craft their payload to slip through filters, but they can't bypass all filters at once. Etc. -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
