Any method I've ever heard of to stop spam imposes some penalty on friendly users and/or has the side effect of increasing the network load. That's why I had doubts that this would make any real difference.
I was almost at a point where I wanted to just make a white-list and throw everything else away - but that's not practical either. I know I would forget about some people that I would not want to reject. It's fairly under control now - I just get 5 or 10 per day at the most. - Don On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 15:01 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote: > > > >How does this foul spamming programs? Does it prevent a spammer from > >sending out a lot of email or just delay the receiving of it? > > It doesn't delay per se, it rejects the incoming mail with a > "try again later" tag. The theory is that spambots which > act as their own mailers will not retry. I'm not sure > how much spam it really stops, but it does make hash of > the expectation that mail is received immediately. > > IMO this is a really bad strategy for two additional reasons. First, > it takes something that is intended as a fallback/recovery procedure > (ie; retrying) and makes it part of the protocol, which just gums up > the works for everyone. Second, if it were even marginally sucessful, > spambots would simply evolve to keep track of retry requests. > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
