From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750774AbWFMIk2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:40:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750776AbWFMIk2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:40:28 -0400 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:5537 "EHLO ns.firmix.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750774AbWFMIk1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:40:27 -0400 Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: jdow Cc: Horst von Brand , Jesper Juhl , nick@linicks.net, marty fouts , David Woodhouse , Matti Aarnio , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <02f401c68ead$c69815a0$0225a8c0@Wednesday> References: <200606130300.k5D302rc004233@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <02f401c68ead$c69815a0$0225a8c0@Wednesday> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Firmix Software GmbH Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:36:06 +0200 Message-Id: <1150187766.28123.13.camel@tara.firmix.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-4.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.126 () AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,FUZZY_AMBIEN Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 22:54 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Horst von Brand" > > jdow 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