From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932802AbWFMDBL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:01:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932803AbWFMDBL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:01:11 -0400 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:53476 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932802AbWFMDBK (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:01:10 -0400 Message-Id: <200606130300.k5D302rc004233@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> To: "jdow" cc: "Jesper Juhl" , nick@linicks.net, "Horst von Brand" , "Bernd Petrovitsch" , "marty fouts" , "David Woodhouse" , "Matti Aarnio" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) In-Reply-To: Message from "jdow" of "Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:03:46 MST." <027e01c68e74$76875910$0225a8c0@Wednesday> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.1; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 19) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:00:02 -0400 From: Horst von Brand X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (inti.inf.utfsm.cl [200.1.21.155]); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:00:20 -0400 (CLT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org jdow wrote: [...] > Greylist those who have not subscribed. That is not easy to do. > 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. > That's FAR more likely to nail spam than using SPF > as a singular measure. It doesn't even require the remote DNS > transaction to check an SPF record. Right. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513