Bruce Richardson (itsbruce@???) said, in message
<20040323235646.GB32724@???>:
>
> If greylisting becomes widespread, how long do you think it will be
> before they change that. It isn't rocked science.
[...]
> If greylisting becomes common, it stops being a low-scale problem and
> they deal with it. Shouldn't be hard.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to be down on greylisting on the
basis that it will be ineffective sometime in the future? I don't think
anyone seriously believes that it can't be bypassed.
At Aber, we started out with subject line pattern matches. That worked for a
while. Then we had to look at other headers. Then the message body. Then
DNSBLs came along. Tarpits, Bayesian filters, SpamAssassin etc etc etc.
Just because something could be broken in future doesn't mean we can't
spend a few minutes setting it up a currently effective response, surely?
I once worked out that my time spent managing our spam filters is probably
worth around £40K per year in terms of staff time that would otherwise be
lost glancing over and deleting unfiltered spam. Sad to say, it is
economical to spend the time at a medium/large organisation.
Cheers,
Alun.
--
Alun Jones auj@???
Systems Support, (01970) 62 2494
Information Services,
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
