Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:32:54 -0500 From: Jim Pingle <lists@pingle.org> To: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, rsmith@xs4all.nl Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight Message-ID: <45BB6296.1080106@pingle.org> In-Reply-To: <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701260924.59674.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roland Smith wrote: > 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. This conversation is getting rather OT for -stable, but I felt the need to ask a question: To defeat this, wouldn't a spammer just have to send out the same spam twice in a row from the same machines, spaced apart by a little time? Bonus for the spammer: accounts on servers without greylisting would get two copies of the spam. Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me that it's just another tool in the ongoing arms race against spammers. It may work for a while, but eventually they'll catch on and it will only cause unnecessary delays for legitimate mail. Jim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45BB6296.1080106>