Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:43:10 -0800 From: David Brinegar <david.brinegar@acm.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spam removal Message-ID: <20040216224310.GA15873@mail.brinegar-computing.com> In-Reply-To: <1328732759.20040216122356@mygirlfriday.info> References: <20040216091316.98506.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> <20040216093332.GA85516@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040216043701.C95778@admin1.mdc.net> <20040216101801.GB58487@grover.logicsquad.net> <20040216055328.W1531@admin1.mdc.net> <20040216121927.GO58487@grover.logicsquad.net> <20040216175340.GB14573@mail.brinegar-computing.com> <1328732759.20040216122356@mygirlfriday.info>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary defends qmail: > It delivers a bounce called QSBMF, and to my knowledge is the only > MTA that does. Those messages are like idiot lights, without the brevity. But qmail is besides the point -- most bounce messages are pretty weak. They work okay if the reader is computer literate. I like the idea of referring to a web page, where you can make room to properly explain things. Especially for DNS blacklists, which vary so much from group to group. Who does it cost more to have long bounce messages? ISPs or spammers? Anybody use tarpits with success? (eg. /usr/ports/spamd or /usr/ports/qmail-ldap says it has a tarpit feature.) -- David Brinegar http://brinegar-computing.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040216224310.GA15873>