Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:58:46 -0200 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Subject: Re: Loosing spam fight Message-ID: <200701271058.47517.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <8a20e5000701240903q35b89e14k1ab977df62411784@mail.gmail.com> <200701260924.59674.joao@matik.com.br> <20070127041608.GG927@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 27 January 2007 02:16, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Fri, 2007-Jan-26 09:24:58 -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > >like I said, for my understandings firewall implemention for spam fighti= ng > > is wrong > > > >because you reject the message > > Except that the original mail was talking about greylisting. This won't > reject any mail sent from a MTA that correctly implements SMTP. According > to the SMTP specs, I am perfectly at liberty to tell you that I can't > accept your mail right now, please try again later. greylisting does not necessarily catch incorrectly implemented SMTP but=20 basicly catch any source not seen before with a correct greeting unless it = is=20 whitelisted then, spam is not necessarily incorrectly implemented SMTP and can be an=20 absolute correct email message (within SMTP specs) which then btw is reject= ed so the question is, if this is a correct way to handle it, rejecting I mean also a point to think about, most complains about spam talk about bandwidth= =20 consumption, by asking for resend later you certainly increase bandwidth=20 consumption and resources on both sides =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?200701271058.47517.joao>