On Wednesday 08 December 2004 12:03, DC wrote: > > This was a fairly lengthy treatise. The bottom line is that: > > 1. Any delay in receiving any email may be costly. OK, the individual corporate "culture" can certainly be an issue. I guess we still treat email as a convenience with no guarantee of delivery. For our business, if anyone needs immediate, guaranteed communication, they still view the phone as the best method although various flavors of "Instant Messenger" are often used too. > 2. The same result can be achieved with other methods that do NOT > cause a delay with far less maintenance time associated with > whitelisting. Hmmm, odd that one, once set up the greylisting hasn't required any maintenance over and above review of logs. > 3. Ultimately, much (if not most) spam is the > result of user behaviors. Those can be successfully modified to > stop spam at the source. Hmmmm, really odd that one! What were the users doing, in the opinion of the researchers, that would cause them to become the victims of spam as related to greylisting, or, well, related to most any other spam reduction method, I guess. We've never had to go out of our way to encourage spammers to send us mail. > 4. Spam engines are already being > engineered around the scheme. If that were true to any extent I'm sure we would have seen a meaningful up-tick in or spam messages but, so far, we've not seen it here. Interesting, thanks for the notes! Regards, Mike Klinke
