This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> If the anti-spam advocates consistently said "our measures impose > >> such-and-such a cost, but we think it's worth it", I would be > >> delighted. > > > > the measures impose a cost, but we think it's worth it > > Can you detail what the cost is for the specific procedures in use on > Debian's servers? No, because you are apparently unaware it exists > already. But yet, without knowing the cost, you are sure it's worth > it. Bah. The specific cost right now is that we have load averages on master in excess of 300. Fairly consistently. Greylisting promises to ease that load by quite a bit. It imposes a small cost: some legitimate mail that doesn't meet whatever criteria is decided on (rDNS, RBL, whatever) will be delayed. None will be rejected by this measure, unless the sending site itself can't be bothered with RFC compliance. That doesn't bother me that much. If it bothers you, use your non-Debian email address for all your package related work, and hardly any of your mail will pass through master. And I notice you still haven't been able to come up with anything resembling a link for your earlier assertions. Can we take it as read that they were, in fact, unfounded? > > Can we get greylisting now? > > We have it, duh. Have you not been paying attention? We don't have it yet. Have you not been paying attention? The only delay we have now is due to spam clogged queues and load. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature