From: Lionel Bouton (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 18:04:57 EST
Greg A. Woods wrote the following on 03.03.2005 23:22 :
>[ On Thursday, March 3, 2005 at 11:27:23 (+0100), Lionel Bouton wrote: ]
>
>
>>Subject: Re: Blocking mail from=<>
>>
>>The problem is the amount of quarantine (or tagged messages) you
>>generate, the amount of CPU/disk space needed to filter the SPAM, the
>>time the users must spent searching for FP.
>>
>>
>
>So? Solve _your_ problem -- don't foist it on others!!!!!
>
>
As I understand from the other posts, you are using RBLs yourself. How
do you live with the time spent by the senders of false positives trying
to reach their contacts? Perhaps you did reject with sufficient
information to ease this task? Then you whould have had the same
behaviour than me: trying to minimize the amount of time spent on
resolving problems be they either chronic delays or outright rejections.
>
>
>>Greylisting takes away a
>>good chunk of this, even after UCE controls.
>>
>>
>
>No, all it does is hand the problem off to others.
>
>
>
You are denying the benefits which are real to focus on you "selfish"
argument which I challenged with facts. Do you really want to have a
conversation between adults or a game of "my way is better than yours"
between children? On my end it seems you are repeating the same argument
over and over without any attention to the ones I present.
>>Don't think so, the amount of time a server saves processing messages
>>that only greylisting can temporarily refuse far outweight the time
>>needed to process the occasional messages that have to be processed
>>twice.
>>
>>
>
>You're looking at this problem from a _very_ selfish perspective.
>
>
>
Using RBLs is as selfish: for the occasionnal false positives the
additional work done by the sender (and probably his/her local admin) is
entirely the fault of the admin using RBLs. At least GL doesn't force
users behind RFC-compliant MTAs to use workarounds...
Lionel, wondering if there's someone reading at the other end.
|
|
|