Hector,
I disagree. I would construe this situation as one in which we
are making the bad guys smarter, driving up our costs for
detecting them and their products. I have trouble considering
that a benefit.
A medicine that makes a bacterium or virus treatment-resistant,
especially when we lack treatments for the resistant forms
and/or when the resistant forms are move virulent and deadly
than the originals, is not a completely desirable treatment or
mechanism.
john
--On Thursday, 15 November, 2007 15:44 -0500 Hector Santos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Douglas Otis wrote:
> >
> > Bulk emailers are often anxious to complete their campaigns
> and are
> > dubious about retry delays of 30 minutes. The initial
> benefit of
> > grey-listing was as a test for whether a transmitting MTA
> carried
> > state since many bots did not. This is changing where now
> many
> > bots retry the same message. The benefits from grey-listing
> > are fading, while bulk emailers have become more aggressive
> in
> > their retries.
>
> That's good Doug.
>
> Good medicines are the ones where you won't eventually need it
> anymore.
>
> Good medicines also helps separate the bad from the good from
> a compliance standpoint, so if the Bulk mailers are getting
> better at what they were suppose to do in the first place,
> then thats good. Not bad.
>
> In the mean time, for the systems who don't follow the specs,
> GL and other SMTP compliance-based ideas will continue to be
> effective.
>
> So your statement about "fading", true or not, I see that as a
> positive, not a negative sign that well it worked.
