Re: tmda (was Re: Attach filter)
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:46:24AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:37:45PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama (spam@bounceswoosh.org) wrote:
> > On 2004-06-25, Paul Johnson penned:
> > > --=-=-=
> > >
> > > "Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> writes:
> > >
> > >> You can use procmail, tmda, or any other filtering app for this.
> > >> Here's what I have in my tmda configuration:
> > >
> > > Don't use TMDA. Challenge-response considered harmful.
> > >
> > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/challenge-response.html
> >
> > Challenge-response isn't the only thing tmda does.
>
> Granted.
>
> It's the primary selling point of the tool, however. And much of the
> information used to sell it is just plain wrong. This has been detailed
> many, many times.
>
> Jason Mastaler accepts criticism so graciously he's banned me from any
> mail access to his domain. Go figure. That's adult, open, honest, and
> principled.
>
> But we'll let the intelligent folks here do the math for themselves:
>
> http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-September/007390.html
> http://www.linux.ie/pipermail/ilug/2003-September/006931.html
> http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-September/007393.html
> http://mla.libertine.org/tmda-users/2003-09/msg00270.html
>
>
> There's really nothing to argue about.
Karsten, what I really don't get is why a person like you who likes
doing research and pressing his points, can't be a little bit more
objective now and then. I agree with you (took some time, granted,
remember that thread many months ago started by that non-person?) that
C-R isn't a good solution to spam, but, if you look at it objectively,
there are some points stated in your C-R rant that don't apply to tmda.
You should grant them that, I think.
> Peace.
Peace, indeed.
David
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: