MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd) - SpamAssassin

This is a discussion on MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd) - SpamAssassin ; On May 20, 2008, at 10:51 AM, mouss wrote: > Jo Rhett wrote: >> mouss, please do a little research > > I did. I may get things wrong, and would be pleased to get > corrected. so please share ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

  1. Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    On May 20, 2008, at 10:51 AM, mouss wrote:
    > Jo Rhett wrote:
    >> mouss, please do a little research

    >
    > I did. I may get things wrong, and would be pleased to get
    > corrected. so please share your knowledge.


    All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to things
    which are not similar, then accusing them of doing no research.

    >> before you go online attacking people.

    >
    > if discussion is considered as an attack, ...


    Look at your posts and your wording and you'll see.

    > There is no such statement in my post. or do you consider "I don't
    > see...", "it looks to me...", "I don't know for others", as
    > "statements"? I confess that english is not my native language, but
    > I try hard ;-p


    You didn't use those when you made the accusations in question.

    > calm down. I apologize if I sounded like attacking your business or
    > friends. That was not my intent.


    I'm calm, and I don't much care about this topic at all. But I spend
    a lot of time helping people disambiguate statements like these from
    well-researched opinions, so I try to flag them when I see them so
    that someone else reading the thread will know that "this isn't the
    overall impression of the list"

    --
    Jo Rhett
    Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
    and other randomness


  2. Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    On Wed, 21 May 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:

    > greylist effectiveness is down to less than 10% effective at this point,
    > because the botnets know to retry now.


    Also consider that greylisting will allow URIBLs time to update even if
    all spambots implement retry and thus negate the _original_ intent of
    greylisting...

    --
    John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
    jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
    key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Liberals love sex ed because it teaches kids to be safe around their
    sex organs. Conservatives love gun education because it teaches kids
    to be safe around guns. However, both believe that the other's
    education goals lead to dangers too terrible to contemplate.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today: the 4th anniversary of SpaceshipOne winning the X-prize


  3. Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    On May 21, 2008, at 11:37 AM, John Hardin wrote:
    > Also consider that greylisting will allow URIBLs time to update even
    > if all spambots implement retry and thus negate the _original_
    > intent of greylisting...


    The negative effects of greylisting outweight the positive. As a
    provider who needs to receive timely problem reports from our
    customers, greylisting was impossible for us to use.

    Comparing spam catches for greylisting against my personal domains
    where I could use greylisting (but all other rulesets being equal) I
    found that less spam was caught by SA and the overall load was
    somewhat reduced, but the amount of spam reaching the mailbox remained
    the same. Over time the load difference reversed as the spambots
    started doing retries (often 5-10 within 2 minutes) and the amount of
    spam reaching the mailbox remained the same. Greylisting became a
    penalty, so I disabled it. Again, without changing the amount of spam
    reaching my mailbox.

    MailChannel's implementation solves all of the problems we had with
    greylisting, while also hitting the botnets where it hurts. It
    appears to be a great idea. I need to figure out how to implement it
    without breaking our internal auth schemes, but I will be doing so.

    --
    Jo Rhett
    Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
    and other randomness


  4. Re: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)


    On May 21, 2008, at 1:19 PM, mouss wrote:
    >> All I'm saying is that you're comparing what they are doing to
    >> things which are not similar, then accusing them of doing no
    >> research.

    >
    > you are confusing me with someone else. I never accused anyone of
    > "doing no research".


    http://www.gossamer-threads.com/list...n/users/121113

    5 message down is you.

    >> Look at your posts and your wording and you'll see.

    >
    > I did. still nothing.


    See above.

    >>> You didn't use those when you made the accusations in question.

    >
    > do you actually read posts you reply to?


    Read your own mail folder, I quoted you at the time. It's also all on
    the thread above if you can't find it in your trash folder.

    >>> I'm calm, and I don't much care about this topic at all. But I
    >>> spend a lot of time helping people disambiguate statements like
    >>> these from well-researched opinions, so I try to flag them when I
    >>> see them so that someone else reading the thread will know that
    >>> "this isn't the overall impression of the list"

    >
    > you'd better take time learning what research is.



    now we're down to insults. *plonk*

    --
    Jo Rhett
    Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
    and other randomness


  5. RE: MailChannels Traffic Control (fwd)

    > > 2: can be bypassed in greylist on that fact #1

    >Both of these are addressed by Mailchannels. But what to do when an
    >"unknown mail server" contacts you is different in the approach.
    >greylist effectiveness is down to less than 10% effective at this
    >point, because the botnets know to retry now.



    FYI: Use intelligent greylisting with hashing functionality. I even know
    of a product supporting this. Take a wild guess. :-) And it's
    effectiveness with greylisting is far beyond 10% even with retrying
    botnets.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2