Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Tom Gal as of Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:37:19PM -0700: > > On 5/18/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > > > If that's acceptable, the easier solution is to simple go to whitelists, > > > and be done with it. > > > > Yes! > > Heh. I think we're approaching the same wavelength... > > [snip - description of greylisting] > > Wow. As much as I don't like "contorting" protocols, that's certainly > > It's all perfectly legal, and MUST be handled according to the protocol. > So it's not contorting. Just gently twisting. :) > > > acceptable behavior, and does have good effects on some concrete > > problems. Very simple too......if I'm not cool enough for you to wait > > a few hours....then you're not worth my time. > > Exactly.
This is pretty easy for a mindless smtp server to get around: send out the spam; send the same one out again in (say) six hours. If the unique tokens are hashed through the target address, it is a simple matter to go through the list twice. If the mail goes through twice, so much the better! I'm not actually interested in writing the code to test this theory. -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
