Not to mention that the mail queues are backing up for over half an hour because of all the spam in the first place :-p
Phil -- Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK > -----Original Message----- > From: uxbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21 November 2006 15:13 > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: RE: Greylisting > > Hmmm, customers not willing to wait 5-10 mins for a email ? > Would prefer to receive more SPAM instead, especially for a > protocol that does not guarantee delivery ;) Urgent Items = > Use the phone or fax > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:02:34 +0100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm afraid you're right on this one. > > > > Of course the spammers read this very list - and they have > already started > > to implement "anti greylisting" meassures... > > > > It's just a matter of time before they see too little > success rate when > > they > > read the bot stats and start to circumvent greylisting too :( > > > > I have yet to try greylisting on a real production system. > I am concerned > > about the 5-15 mins. delay because we have some sensitive > customers that > > are > > already on their toes. But with the right set of arguments > I'm sure I can > > convince even the "worst" customer that greylisting is a > good thing... > > still. > > > > I wonder how many years it will take before some > organization steps up and > > lead the way to new SMTP standards. My company has gone > from 1 to 4 mail > > server over the past 6 months. I reckon it's about time > protocols adapt to > > the world today :) > > > > - Nicolai > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 21. november 2006 01:12 > > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Greylisting > > > > > > On Monday 20 November 2006 15:08, Rick Macdougall wrote: > >> It's possible that they could send it all twice but I've > never seen > >> it. > >> Remember that some unbelievable number of infected > Windows clients > > are > >> the main source of spam and it would just be too much > trouble for the > >> spammer to try every address twice after a 15 minute interval. > > > > Oh come on! It costs the spammer NOTHING to make that > adjustment to his > > bot > > net. Its someone else's bandwidth, and someone else's cpu cycles. > > > > They are reading this list and planning the changes already. > > > > -- > > _____________________________________ > > John Andersen > > > > > > > --[ UxBoD ]-- > // PGP Key: "curl -s http://www.splatnix.net/uxbod.asc | gpg --import" > // Fingerprint: 543A E778 7F2D 98F1 3E50 9C1F F190 93E0 E8E8 0CF8 > // Keyserver: www.keyserver.net Key-ID: 0xE8E80CF8 > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous > content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. >
