Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter)

Bernd Petrovitsch
2006-06-13T08:40:28Z

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 22:54 -0700, jdow wrote:
> From: "Horst von Brand" <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
> > jdow <jdow@earthlink.net> 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