On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 12:28 PM, Cory Petkovsek wrote:
Stopping spam at the mta level is more efficient in my book. Why spendYou are correct, up to a point.
precious time, cpu cycles and bandwidth to accept a bunch of spam just
to quarantine it and then waste MY TIME to look at it? Instead have the
MTA require certain things, like that the server that is connecting to
it is configured properly. Much better to have the MTA determine as
quickly as possible that it isn't going to receive any mail from a
connecting MTA and terminate the conversation right there.
While it is a good idea to block as much as possible at the MTA level using
DNS blacklists, and requiring valid reverse records.
There will be n > 0 users who will INSIST that mail from soandso.net be allowed
even though soandso.net is not willing to configure their mail or dns properly.
<rant>
While I would be more than happy to go with end-to-end TLS server authentication scheme
I haven't yet seen a plausible deployment scheme, and the only entities with the heft to offer such on any significant basis are national governments, and ours is 0wnz0red by interest groups that won't stand for any interference to their right to spam.
</rant>
_______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
