-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, May 17 at 03:05 PM, quoth Darrin Chandler:
>> And one of these is supposed to be less irritating than the other?
> <SNIP>
>
> Ok, you made me laugh!
:)
> FYI, greylisting doesn't work like that. There's no need (mostly) to
> manually intervene. The system I'm using (OpenBSD's spamd)
> *temporarily* rejects mail from an unknown server. Real, normal
> servers will keep it queued and retry shortly. If retries follow
> behavior specified in RFCs then the server is whitelisted,
> automatically.
Ah, you're right, I was confused.
My only objection to greylisting (aside from the inherent delay that
it introduces into email) is that it's one of these anti-spam measures
that only work until it gets widespread enough for spammers to decide
to do something about it (they own enough always-on Windows spam-bots
after all, it's not like they're too short on resources; not retrying
is just laziness on their part). Very much like all the other
anti-spam measures that rely on spammers violating the SMTP RFCs in
one way or another (for example, the early-talker method (aka. "banner
delay")).
BUT, that doesn't mean I won't use 'em myself for as long as they stay
useful (I use a banner delay), so I can hardly fault you for it. But
let's not pretend these are better "anti-spam" techniques than they
really are.
~Kyle
- --
A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.
-- Chuckles the Clown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
iD8DBQFGTT/ABkIOoMqOI14RAgfXAJ0Qn9W/SM3i9XciN2EtA269y4xjFgCgiL/P
MvmZJn4xHBhbkU8fbl/HWBU=
=J2/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
