All I have to say about this thread is....hey Theo nice to see you back, I needed some comic relief today. Oh and my feelings about being abrasive towards spammers is fuck 'em, I hate spammers. I wish spamd could shit on their servers but that's not a settable option. Maybe spamd -P would poop on the connecting MTA ;) Bob...can it be done ? -- ~Allie D.
On Tue, February 20, 2007 12:23, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> I haven't looked at the implementation in OpenBSD extensively, but at > > Well, perhaps you should, instead of commenting before you do. > >> a basic level there are two portions, the greylist function, and the >> "waste their time" function, yes? I'm talking about bypassing the >> first, not the second. > > Neither cost us. Neither is bypassable. > >> Even in the second case, if the spammer notices they're connecting to >> something that will waste their (bot's) time, they can simply >> disconnect and use the bot's resources to do something else. > > No spam was delivered. Again, what is the problem? > >> Not the >> the spammers really care about wasting resources *that* much since >> they don't have to pay for them (or very little for a bot herd >> compared to "bulletproof hosting"), but it could make them a little >> more efficient. > > No spammers care about wasted resources? I didn't know you were a > spammer, and knew what they cared about. I guess their lack of > wasted resources must be why they retry, like SMP demands. Except > they don't. Perhaps it is not so simple? > >> The history of fighting spam has tended to show that if any form of >> combating spam becomes too effective (and wide-spread), spammers will >> invest effort figuring out how to defeat it. > > You're right. We should not try. > > This whole conversation is totally stupid. You don't use spamd, > yet you want to discuss it. I think you just want to see your words > on mailing lists.
