Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam

[Christopher Hilton]

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bart Silverstrim [mailto:bsilver at chrononomicon.com]

[snip]

>> Like I said...if it taxes their resources even one tenth of one percent,
>> I'm for it.
>>
> 
> It's not their resources, it's the resources they have stolen from other
> people by breaking into their systems.  Greylisting really, and truly, isn't
> a problem for spammers, unless it's coupled with use of blacklists.
> 

Just because the spammers have stolen their distribution network doesn't 
mean that it has no value to them. The distribution network has a very 
low cost but that's not the same thing as having a very low value. Most 
spam is delivered overnight and on the weekend. I think that there are 
two reasons for this. The older reason is to keep the bots off of the 
RBLs. But I think that the bigger reason to deliver spam off hours is to 
protect the botnet from detection. I think that this makes the spammers 
very sensitive to the duration of a spam run. I don't think that many 
people are grey listing right now but I think that it's increasing 
rapidly. On an internet where most people grey list I think that the 
spammers must see grey listing as a major problem because of what it 
does the duration of a spam run.

-- Chris


-- 
       __o          "All I was doing was trying to get home from work."
     _`\<,_           -Rosa Parks
___(*)/_(*)___________________________________________________________
Christopher Sean Hilton                    <chris | at | vindaloo.com>
         pgp key: D0957A2D/f5 30 0a e1 55 76 9b 1f 47 0b 07 e9 75 0e 14