Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:28:22 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> To: devnull@freebsd.org Cc: rsmith@xs4all.nl, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight -> devnull@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20070127152822.GA71323@freebie.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <20070127152312.GB1085@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <20070127141052.GA96039@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <45BB6296.1080106@pingle.org> <200701271304.29216.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127152312.GB1085@zaphod.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:23:13PM +0100, Simon L. Nielsen wrote.. > On 2007.01.27 13:04:28 -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > > On Saturday 27 January 2007 12:32, Jim Pingle wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > ... > > > 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. > > > > finally some cares about the users here, that is a really important point, how > > do you justify that your client get the email he is waiting for an hour > > later? Probably he looks then for a better service provider ... > > Could this discussion please be continued on the apropriate list which > is designed for spam - devnull@FreeBSD.org? Or -chat, or wherever, but not on -stable please. -- Wilko Bulte wilko@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070127152822.GA71323>