From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932087AbWFMNJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:09:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932091AbWFMNJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:09:39 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:7577 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932087AbWFMNJi (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:09:38 -0400 Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) From: David Woodhouse To: Matthias Andree Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060613124944.GA16171@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <200606130300.k5D302rc004233@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <1150189506.11159.93.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20060613104557.GA13597@merlin.emma.line.org> <1150201475.12423.12.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060613124944.GA16171@merlin.emma.line.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:10:54 +0100 Message-Id: <1150204255.12423.32.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-1.fc5.2.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 14:49 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > Separating tasks into distinct processes, to prevent rampant list > drivers from messing with the MTA and vice versa. We're talking about _one_ task; receiving mail to one address, and delivering it to other addresses. That's what the MTA _does_ -- all it needs from the mailing list side is the list of recipients. I wouldn't want to put all the bounce processing &c into the MTA, but basic handling of list traffic does make a certain amount of sense. In expanding a simple list, there isn't much scope for 'rampant list drivers' to screw anything up. > I'm also not convinced greylisting is a "solution". Once it catches on, > spammers will retry. They control enough drones where smashing out > successful deliveries from their address list and retrying them will > work for them. You may be right. But still, it keeps us ahead of the game and it's very effective right now -- partly because lots of people still _aren't_ using it. It does require a modicum of clue to implement. I think it'll be a long time before greylisting is no longer beneficial, if it ever does happen. -- dwmw2