On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:59, Duncan Hill wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 August 2004 14:53, Bob Apthorpe might have typed:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:32:59 +0100 Duncan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > It took about 1/2 an hour after Jeff posted that it was in WS before the
> > > local DNS managed to find a surbl.org DNS that had the record:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Note that this is where the delay of greylisting is supposed to help.
> > While a large fraction of spam-emitting hosts won't retry, a delay of
> > 30-60min gives the DNSBLs time to update from trap data. That's the
> > theory anyway.
>
> Yep, and that's one reason I greylist :) Not much actually reaches my
> greylisting db due to other restrictions in place, but it does work
> effectively.
And using a greylisting delay of only a few minutes currently eliminates
98 to 99% of the spam out there. Of course in this case a longer delay
would be needed to let the surbl lists update with new spam. And
if/when the spammers try to get around it the combination of greylisting
and using spamassassin with black lists will take care of the problem.
IMHO if everyone used this combination spam would almost become extinct
and since very few people would be getting the messages I would expect
spam to start going away entirely. At least until they find another
cheap alternative.
--
Scot L. Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Repartee is something we think of twenty-four hours too late.
-- Mark Twain
