On 24 October 2011 18:15, Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote: > Tom Murphy <amin...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Blocking/unsubscribing people based on their email provider seems... sort of >> impolite or unwelcoming. >> A greylist could work. > > Greylist, as in temporarily refuse a message, and wait for the sending > mail server to retry? I don't see how it would work against hijacked > hotmail accounts, they most likely use the real hotmail service - which > would retry appropriately. My own experience indicates that spammers > now often "correctly" retry deliveries, so greylisting is less effective > than it used to be. > >> Given the relatively low volume of spam, my vote is for the original >> suggestion of first-message-moderated, with the ability to put an address >> back on moderation if their account is hacked.
I see greylisting as specialised form of moderation: * If it's a new user and they send spam, kick them off the list. * If it seems an existing user has had their email hacked, give them more than one chance before kicking them off the list, possibly sending a message to them directly to check if they are still able to access their account and stop the hijacking. But +1 to at least moderating new users; I'd prefer something more concrete for dealing with possibly hacked accounts than just "moderating" them again. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
