On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 22:54 -0700, jdow wrote:
> From: "Horst von Brand" <[email protected]>
> > jdow <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
