Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:57:08 -0200 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight Message-ID: <200701271257.09365.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:10, you wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:58:46AM -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > > also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about > > bandwidth consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase > > bandwidth consumption and resources on both sides > > Most spammers do not bother to return if they get a resend request. > That's the whole point of doing this. So practically it doesn't increase > bandwidth consumption. you must see both sides, following your theory, spammers stay away but good= =20 guys *are* coming back, greylisting is at the end the same only a little bi= t=20 less stupid than this anti-spam-send-and-ask-a-confirmation-mail things also that spammers don't come back is an illusion, firstable they do it for= =20 money and secondable if they don't come back from the same source they come= =20 back from another and either one might be spoofed so you can greylisting=20 yourself to death because sooner or later all sources are blacklisted or=20 you're rewriting continuously your whitelists and both are probably=20 unreliable at the end =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200701271257.09365.joao>