[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fixing graylisting [was TBR]

2007-11-15 15:08:29


I disagree.   I would construe this situation as one in which we
are making the bad guys smarter, driving up our costs for
detecting them and their products.  I have trouble considering
that a benefit.

A medicine that makes a bacterium or virus treatment-resistant,
especially when we lack treatments for the resistant forms
and/or when the resistant forms are move virulent and deadly
than the originals, is not a completely desirable treatment or


--On Thursday, 15 November, 2007 15:44 -0500 Hector Santos
<hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com> wrote:

Douglas Otis wrote:
 > Bulk emailers are often anxious to complete their campaigns
and are
 > dubious about retry delays of 30 minutes.  The initial
benefit of
 > grey-listing was as a test for whether a transmitting MTA
 > state since many bots did not.  This is changing where now
 > bots retry the same message.  The benefits from grey-listing
 > are fading, while bulk emailers have become more aggressive
 > their retries.

That's good Doug.

Good medicines are the ones where you won't eventually need it

Good medicines also helps separate the bad from the good from
a compliance standpoint, so if the Bulk mailers are getting
better at what they were suppose to do in the first place,
then thats good. Not bad.

In the mean time, for the systems who don't follow the specs,
GL and other SMTP compliance-based ideas will continue to be

So your statement about "fading", true or not, I see that as a
positive, not a negative sign that well it worked.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>