Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 04 May 2007 12:50:18 -0400
From:      Christopher Hilton <>
To:        Ted Mittelstaedt <>
Cc:        John Levine <>,, Bart Silverstrim <>
Subject:   Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bart Silverstrim []


>> Like I said...if it taxes their resources even one tenth of one percent,
>> I'm for it.
> It's not their resources, it's the resources they have stolen from other
> people by breaking into their systems.  Greylisting really, and truly, isn't
> a problem for spammers, unless it's coupled with use of blacklists.

Just because the spammers have stolen their distribution network doesn't 
mean that it has no value to them. The distribution network has a very 
low cost but that's not the same thing as having a very low value. Most 
spam is delivered overnight and on the weekend. I think that there are 
two reasons for this. The older reason is to keep the bots off of the 
RBLs. But I think that the bigger reason to deliver spam off hours is to 
protect the botnet from detection. I think that this makes the spammers 
very sensitive to the duration of a spam run. I don't think that many 
people are grey listing right now but I think that it's increasing 
rapidly. On an internet where most people grey list I think that the 
spammers must see grey listing as a major problem because of what it 
does the duration of a spam run.

-- Chris

       __o          "All I was doing was trying to get home from work."
     _`\<,_           -Rosa Parks
Christopher Sean Hilton                    <chris | at |>
         pgp key: D0957A2D/f5 30 0a e1 55 76 9b 1f 47 0b 07 e9 75 0e 14

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>