On Apr 19, 2008, at 21:58, Ben Scott wrote: > 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.
True, good point. To further complicate matters, if we both increase each others' loads with greylisting, we both cut down on our loads by not content-scanning 40% of our spams. It's relatively cheap. It would be interesting to study how each compares with DKIM, SMTP/TLS, etc.. > 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. Note that the 'adjustment' is to implement a queuing system in their winzombies, not just blast out spam as fast as possible. While not impossible for this simple case, it appears only about a third of the spammers have felt it wise to do so. They're in the game of getting paid by the spam delivered. Depending on how many you can blast out a minute, how much RAM the zombie has, how long the window is (which varies), how big a state table is required, etc., the delivery rate could be severely hampered. > Game over in one move. 'Altered' would be a better word - we've at least doubled the cost of delivering a spam with greylisting, probably more than that in practice. The original intent was to attack the economics of spamming. The UN hasn't sent their manhunters down on them for increasing global warming yet, and there is a bit of wild-westism inherent in the system. > 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. All true, but if it were profitable for all spammers to defeat greylisting I believe they would have. If everybody implemented greylisting they would have to. It's the ouroboros. -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/
