Re: [anti-spam-wg] About DNSBLs vs greylisting - Was: Steve Linford and Spamhaus Internet Terrorists
From: Walter Ian Kaye walter@localhost
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:02:51 -0700
At 09:42p +0200 08/20/2006, Esa Laitinen didst inscribe upon an
This may well be. Also a challence/response system, like previously
mentioned qsecretary, stops most of the junk.
They both have one thing in common: they're antisocial to the rest
of the internet. It is a bit like trowing your garbage over your
fence to your neighbours garden. Sure, you've got rid of it, but
created problems to others.
Both also have the same cost-shifting element than spam has: to get
rid of your junk, you shift part of the cost of your e-mail to
others. Greylisting increases senders mail queues unnecessarily, c/r
requires human intervention and more often than not the challence is
sent to innocent 3rd party.
I have a personal policy to never respond to c/r messages. If someone
can't be bothered to receive my mail, that's their problem. If they
think I'm ignoring them, tough. It's the c/r system that's being
rude, not me. :-)
Spamarrest is evil. Really. If you don't check your logs in 7 days,
all record of the email is deleted and you'll never even know someone
tried to reach you. Evidently that "service" is designed to
facilitate the loss of data.