[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: *** bluber *** Re: Male xxxxxx enhancement formula^



On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:57:06PM -0700, Ian Greenhoe wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 23:15 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Am 2005-05-24 13:28:04, schrieb Ian Greenhoe:
> > > There are several solutions that I can see:
> > > 
> > > 1)  Have the mailserver reject the first delivery attempt by a non-list
> > > recipient.  (Or, for that matter, the first delivery attempt of *any*
> > > mail.)
> > 
> > <lists.debian.org> should be easyly reached by all $USER and
> > most newcomers do not know, how to subscribe to mailinglists.
> 
> It appears that you do not understand what I'm talking about here.  SMTP
> (the protocol via which all public email is sent) allows for the fact
> that the remote machine may not be available or may be flaky.  Compliant
> servers will deal with a server that non-fatally rejects an email by
> waiting a few minutes and re-transmitting.  Spammers rarely, if ever,
> use compliant servers (they can't afford to with the volume of email
> that they are sending.)
> 
> What happens with a real server with this scheme is:
> 1) It attempts to send.  Send fails: temporarily rejected.
> 2) It puts mail on queue to re-send.
> 3) It attempts to re-send the mail.  Send succeeds: Mail succeeds.
> 
> What happens with a spammer's server with this scheme is:
> 1) It attempts to send.  Send fails: temporarily rejected.
> 2) It gives up, moving onto the next target.
> 3) Send fails.  Mail is blocked.
> 
> See greylistd for an example implementation.
> 
> > > 2)  Require that someone who is not on the list to respond to an
> > > automatic response.
> > 
> > Most people I know (including myself) send challange-reponses
> > to /dev/null (I get every day such bullshit)
> 
> My experience is the *exact* opposite.  Personally, I'd rather have to
> deal with a challenge-response once -- which, mind you, is how you get
> on this very list -- then have to deal with the hordes of spam that you
> (and many others) are complaining about.

C/R Systems are just as bad as spam.

-- 
Chris.
======



Reply to: