On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 07:29, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
I recommend a perusal of
http://www.faqs.org/rfc/rfc2920.txt
http://www.postfix.org/uce.html#reject_unauth_pipelining
The bandwidth problem of spam is a side effect of spam; if a
spammer wanted to just eat your bandwidth and not send spam
they wouldn't be a spammer any more; they would be a DDOSer.
PIPELINING is of little relevance to most small SMTP servers because
connections by spammers would be individual ones repeated over the
course of several hours (as I see extensively on my small server), its
rare that I see multiple recipients attempted at the same time.
All spammers do to get around PIPELINING is to connect multiple times no
doubt at greater cost as the overhead is now consumed by multiple
connections where originally there could have just been one.
What is your experience with this @ pobox.com Meng?
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __lib__ __SPF__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part