Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread Dan Patnode
I'm intrigued by this idea. During a given minute of time I may get 1000 messages. 1/4 of them are slown down (occupying more SMTP/Declude sessions), but the burdon is spread out. Can this be applied to increase server capacity? If I throttle, at the firewall, the IPs of spammers, will the

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread R. Scott Perry
I'm intrigued by this idea. During a given minute of time I may get 1000 messages. 1/4 of them are slown down (occupying more SMTP/Declude sessions), but the burdon is spread out. Actually, with true tarpitting, there would be slightly fewer SMTP32.exe and Declude.exe processes (they would

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread brian
Alligate does it :) (The gateway version anyway) On 06/18/03 3:25pm you wrote... It would be less, assuming that IMail can handle it (and that your firewall can do the tarpitting). I'm not aware of any firewalls that can do true SMTP tarpitting (which requires sending short bits of data

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread Rick Davidson
- From: Dan Patnode [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting I'm intrigued by this idea. During a given minute of time I may get 1000 messages. 1/4 of them are slown down (occupying more SMTP/Declude sessions

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread Dan Patnode
Interesting Scott, I'm not sure I want to do true tarpitting, I want the spam to get through eventually (just in case its not), just way after the legitimate stuff. I use Netscreen firewalls and their technical info says throttling to less than 10kbps risks dropping the connection. The idea

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread brian
through many different servers. Just thinking outloud. Rick Davidson Buckeye Internet Inc www.buckeyeweb.com 440-953-1900 ext: 222 - Original Message - From: Dan Patnode [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread Dan Patnode
] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting I'm intrigued by this idea. During a given minute of time I may get 1000 messages. 1/4 of them are slown down (occupying more SMTP/Declude sessions), but the burdon is spread out. Can this be applied to increase

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread R. Scott Perry
I'm not sure I want to do true tarpitting, I want the spam to get through eventually (just in case its not), just way after the legitimate stuff. True tarpitting will allow the E-mail through. The idea is that it will have to wait a long, long time -- something that a legitimate mailserver

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread Bill B.
and send mail only at the speed that IMail can handle I'm curious, what rate did you find Imail capable of handling before it stopped responding? Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:36:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting

2003-06-18 Thread brian
... and send mail only at the speed that IMail can handle I'm curious, what rate did you find Imail capable of handling before it stopped responding? Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:36:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Tar Pitting Alligate