![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 22:54 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Horst von Brand" <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> > > jdow <jdow@earthlink.net> wrote: [...] > >> Greylist those who have not subscribed. [...] > >> Let their email server try > >> again in 30 minutes. For those who are not subscribed it should not > >> matter if their message is delayed 30 minutes. And so far spammers > >> never try again. > > > > Wrong. Greylisting does stop an immense amount of spam here, but a lot > > comes through. On one low traffic domain, we perceived 50% less spam with greylisting. But spam is rising. > So if it's not perfect it's not worth doing at all, eh? Yet you think It works now but the next generation viruses/trojans/.... will have real MTA functionality (i.e. SMTP 100% correct) and it is not a problem since the zombie nets are large enough that that won't hurt anyone really. > SPF, which is FAR less suited as a spam preventative, is a single No means alone will kill spam (except making email as such as expensive as snail mail). So comparing different means makes no sense. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-06-13 08:42 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||