From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <434689BF.7080700@anvil.com> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:44:15 +0100 From: Dave Lukes User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: C H Forsyth , 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] stubbing References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9618ffd2-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > i had similar luck with greylisting, validatesender, etc and SPF. We can't greylist, we'll be validating sender in about a month and SPF will get done ASA I convince myself I know what it "means". > now, if i could just do something about the rbl morons, i'd be happy, DaveL puts his finger in his ear and says "Rud" backwards. Charles, I'm sure we'd all like to hear of a spam-protection system which isn't a PITA to administer and which actually delivers the message before the recipient dies of old age: greylisting is too slow for our business. Sadly, in reality, I suspect that what we have here (spamassassin and blacklists up the eyeballs) is about as good as it gets: evidence to the contrary gratefully received. Our whitelist has about 6 entries on it for important business contacts who use dodgy ISPs. > but i doubt it. people that attempt reverse lookups and not SPF are a close second. Hysterical reasons for that, like SPF has only existed for <1year, uses DNS and has badly publicised semantics (otherwise I'd have jumped on it long ago). Dave.