are Projects, Inc.
_
From: Robin Pollak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:30 PM
To: 'Dan Barker'
Subject: RE: MailChannels Traffic Control
Hi Dan,
Traffic Control is enterprise software and as a result we charge a minimum
of $2500.00. This is so
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
this feature.
if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.
Jo Rhett wrote:
There's nothing on
> And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm
> trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the
> responses.
FYI: So are other products (at least one). And slowing down TCP sessions
will hit ISPs as well btw. but that's a different stories.
Oh and btw:
> > 2: can be bypassed in greylist on that fact #1
>Both of these are addressed by Mailchannels. But what to do when an
>"unknown mail server" contacts you is different in the approach.
>greylist effectiveness is down to less than 10% effective at this
>point, because the botnets know to r
>> http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/
>Okay, this link wasn't available to me. I googled the term you
>provided and only found the FLS site. They had no links to this
>data.
Possible.
> Next time you want to suggest that someone didn't research, you
> should be explicit with your lin
Personally, I am tired of this entire thread. It has nothing to do with
SA, so PLEASE move it to the MailChannels discussion forums or lists.
Jo Rhett wrote:
I'm tired of wasting time with this pointless conversation. Just stop
making authoritative statements about products you haven't rese
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
this feature.
if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.
There's nothing on tha
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
Your insults are irrelevant to the topic here, and I won't put up with
it.
...I thought you plonk'd him? :)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key:
On May 21, 2008, at 3:18 PM, mouss wrote:
Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX,
No problem, search for "Slow Replies" in the 2.0 release notes.
And Mailchannels isn't implementing slow replies. That's what I'm
trying to say. It is slowing the TCP session, not slowing the
On May 21, 2008, at 1:08 PM, mouss wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
this feature.
if you can't find the docs that others have read, and still accuse
them of lack of research, there is a word for this: ridiculous.
There's nothing on that site. It's o
On May 21, 2008, at 1:19 PM, mouss wrote:
All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to
things which are not similar, then accusing them of doing no
research.
you are confusing me with someone else. I never accused anyone of
"doing no research".
http://www.gossamer-thre
On May 21, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this
feature. I can't research it further without getting the product
here
to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that
everyone read the information
René Berber wrote:
[snip]
Can't you read? He said documentation on BarricadeMX,
No problem, search for "Slow Replies" in the 2.0 release notes.
you answer with more of your dumb messages.
Can we kill this thread now?
mouss wrote:
[snip]
I accept your accusation about my research IF you can please point me
to a document on FSL's website which addresses slowing down TCP
-
sessions. I can't find it.
and this is the guy who is trying to teach me research?
- try searching t
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 20, 2008, at 10:51 AM, mouss wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
mouss, please do a little research
I did. I may get things wrong, and would be pleased to get corrected.
so please share your knowledge.
All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to things
which a
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!)
features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure
it is I who has to do the researching?
I read every document on their website, and saw z
>I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of this
>feature. I can't research it further without getting the product here
>to test, and I'm not suggesting that everyone do this -- just that
>everyone read the information available.
http://www.snertsoft.com/smtp/smtpf/
On May 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
It sure can and we are using that feature. It adresses all (!)
features MailChannel claims to address on the webpage and more. Sure
it is I who has to do the researching?
I read every document on their website, and saw zero mentions of
did quite a bit of research and even asked for more information (which
has not been provided yet). I have not said "it lacks feature x" while you
incorrectly claim lacking "features" of other products.
Regards JP
-- Urspr. Mitt. --
Betreff: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control
On May 21, 2008, at 11:37 AM, John Hardin wrote:
Also consider that greylisting will allow URIBLs time to update even
if all spambots implement retry and thus negate the _original_
intent of greylisting...
The negative effects of greylisting outweight the positive. As a
provider who needs
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
greylist effectiveness is down to less than 10% effective at this point,
because the botnets know to retry now.
Also consider that greylisting will allow URIBLs time to update even if
all spambots implement retry and thus negate the _original_ intent of
g
On May 20, 2008, at 10:51 AM, mouss wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
mouss, please do a little research
I did. I may get things wrong, and would be pleased to get
corrected. so please share your knowledge.
All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to things
which are not similar,
give longer greylist times will do without marketing :-)
It will slow down real user's mail a lot too.
On May 20, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
real mail servers is
1: known
2: can be bypassed in greylist on that fact #1
Both of these are addressed by Mailchannels. But what to do
May I suggest that you redo your research? BarricadeMX has no feature
at all that even attempts to address the issue MailChannels is
addressing, ie slowing down the TCP channel.
On May 20, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
Why is everyone willing to skip doing 5 minutes of resea
On Tue, May 20, 2008 19:23, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> give longer greylist times will do without marketing :-)
> It will slow down real user's mail a lot too.
real mail servers is
1: known
2: can be bypassed in greylist on that fact #1
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coup
Jo Rhett wrote:
On May 19, 2008, at 11:43 PM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
So yes: If their main "benefit" is tarpitting etc. then I agree it
probably is not worth the money or discussion.
Why is everyone willing to skip doing 5 minutes of research?
Mailchannels idea may not work for you.
Jo Rhett wrote:
mouss, please do a little research
I did. I may get things wrong, and would be pleased to get corrected. so
please share your knowledge.
before you go online attacking people.
if discussion is considered as an attack, ...
Your statements about what work and don't have no
> Why is everyone willing to skip doing 5 minutes of research?
I did.
> Mailchannels idea may not work for you. But it's worth doing a bit of
> research.
Oh the idea is nice. But there are others out there that - from my
personal perspective - are doing this stuff much better, at least from
w
On May 19, 2008, at 11:43 PM, Koopmann, Jan-Peter wrote:
So yes: If their main "benefit" is tarpitting etc. then I agree it
probably is not worth the money or discussion.
Why is everyone willing to skip doing 5 minutes of research?
Mailchannels idea may not work for you. But it's worth doin
On May 19, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 20:18, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
To be fair (I'm testing it right now): It's easy to get running.
Right now the Tarpit and slowdown features cannot be had in Postfix,
so I'm giving it a spin.
give longer greylist times will
mouss, please do a little research before you go online attacking
people. Your statements about what work and don't have no backup, and
go against all existing evidence today, and yet you're blasting them
for lack of serious study. Try to do some yourself.
On May 19, 2008, at 11:46 AM, mo
Hi
> In both cases, they don't provide any serious study. they only show
> numbers that go with their claims. I don't know for others, but my logs
> don't seem to confirm theirs.
Where do they show numbers? Could not find any.
> and the slowdown thing is based on the theory that spammers have
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:46:23PM +0200, mouss wrote:
>>
>>> and the slowdown thing is based on the theory that spammers have
>>> better things to do than wait. now that we know more about botnets,
>>> this theory doesn't stand.
>>>
>>> how long would it take to write an asynchronous smtp cli
On Mon, May 19, 2008 20:18, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> To be fair (I'm testing it right now): It's easy to get running.
> Right now the Tarpit and slowdown features cannot be had in Postfix,
> so I'm giving it a spin.
give longer greylist times will do without marketing :-)
Benny Pedersen
Need
Justin Mason wrote:
mouss writes:
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I respect you, but I feel sorry here. Tarpit and slowdown are know since
a long time, so mailchannel bring nothing here (except marketing). In
particular,"greet pause" has been implemented
mouss writes:
> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > * mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> I respect you, but I feel sorry here. Tarpit and slowdown are know since
> >> a long time, so mailchannel bring nothing here (except marketing). In
> >> particular,"greet pause" has been implemented by some peopl
* mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> you can use sleep. sure, it stops the process, but if your system is not
> under heavy load, it may be acceptable...
Yep.
> but anyway. I don't see what mailchannel are bringing that deserves this
> debate. it looks to me like this:
>
> - they started trying to
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I respect you, but I feel sorry here. Tarpit and slowdown are know since
a long time, so mailchannel bring nothing here (except marketing). In
particular,"greet pause" has been implemented by some people. the fact
that this is not com
* Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > To be fair (I'm testing it right now): It's easy to get running.
> > Right now the Tarpit and slowdown features cannot be had in Postfix,
> > so I'm giving it a spin.
>
> Tarpit in postfix for years, right?
Slowdown?
> smtpd_soft_error_limit = 10
>
> From: Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 20:18:26 +0200
> To:
> Subject: Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)
>
> * mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I respect you, but I feel sorry here. Tarpit and slowdown are know sin
* mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I respect you, but I feel sorry here. Tarpit and slowdown are know since
> a long time, so mailchannel bring nothing here (except marketing). In
> particular,"greet pause" has been implemented by some people. the fact
> that this is not common is not due to an
Justin Mason wrote:
Hey all --
I'm on the technical advisory board for MailChannels, a company who make a
commercial traffic-shaping antispam product, Traffic Control. Basically,
you put it in front of your real MTA, and it applies "the easy stuff" --
greet-pause, early-talker disconnection, lo
42 matches
Mail list logo
