From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <026801c385a9$d58c1300$b9844051@insultant.net> From: "boyd, rounin" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: <20030928101050.J27821@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <020001c3859e$d209f220$b9844051@insultant.net> <20030928114226.L27821@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Subject: Re: [9fans] spam rejection after reception does have limits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:18:16 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 52214446-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > PS: Any bet how long it will take for spammers to figure a way around > Boyd's block? i understand its failure modes, but it raises the bar and it's in the public domain so it's open to scrutiny. brahma% cd log/mail brahma% ls -l alrw--w--w- M 262286 boyd boyd 65712 Sep 28 05:57 audit alrw--w--w- M 262286 boyd boyd 126632 Sep 28 05:57 errors alrw--w--w- M 262286 boyd boyd 88174 Sep 28 05:57 rejects brahma% wc -l errors 1349 errors brahma% so when stuff starts winding up in my mbox, i'll just raise the bar. that's how security works: what have you got to guard? how much is it worth to guard it? short of hacking an stmp server (which i'm loathed to do) i'd implement a stat based black/white list. you do not, in my beloved corps, screw up with smtp. btw: whoever got snarf/copy/paste right on windows' drawterm did a great job.