Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > comment on the spam situation this and next year...

Reply
Thread Tools

comment on the spam situation this and next year...

 
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=196602463

I find it interesting that few mention grey listing, yet it is highly
effective. Of course these are marketing sound bites from companies
floging anti-spam products/services.....

I wonder if any journalism actually takes place these days....does not
look like it.

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2006
thingy wrote:
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=196602463
>
> I find it interesting that few mention grey listing, yet it is highly
> effective. Of course these are marketing sound bites from companies
> floging anti-spam products/services.....
>

Grey-listing is a terrible idea that creates extra load on already
stressed mail servers, and which won't take long for SPAMmers to
circumvent anyway. If grey-listing becomes prevalent then SPAMmers will
just adjust their armies of bots to try several times, just like a
legitimate SMTP server would.

Grey-listing can result in two or three or more attempts to deliver
email, depending on the clash between retry parameters that the two ends
of the link decide upon. It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
only to then get refused for some other reason.

People have unreal expectations of email. They expect it to be delivered
almost instantly. Try explaining to the CEO's PA that her important
email won't get delivered for maybe an hour because some 'soul with an
R' grey-listed her email.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
In message <4579e7d6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Enkidu wrote:

> It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
> grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
> only to then get refused for some other reason.


What sort of other reason?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
Enkidu wrote:
> thingy wrote:
>> http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=196602463
>>
>> I find it interesting that few mention grey listing, yet it is highly
>> effective. Of course these are marketing sound bites from companies
>> floging anti-spam products/services.....
>>

> Grey-listing is a terrible idea that creates extra load on already
> stressed mail servers, and which won't take long for SPAMmers to
> circumvent anyway. If grey-listing becomes prevalent then SPAMmers will
> just adjust their armies of bots to try several times, just like a
> legitimate SMTP server would.
>
> Grey-listing can result in two or three or more attempts to deliver
> email, depending on the clash between retry parameters that the two ends
> of the link decide upon. It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
> grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
> only to then get refused for some other reason.
>
> People have unreal expectations of email. They expect it to be delivered
> almost instantly. Try explaining to the CEO's PA that her important
> email won't get delivered for maybe an hour because some 'soul with an
> R' grey-listed her email.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>

I wonder if there is not a case for law enforcement agencies worldwide
to work, perhaps through an agency like Interpol, to identify the actual
beneficiaries of spam - the people that will receive the money.

It shouldn't be that difficult to create a list of organisations that
could be subject to blocking orders banning them from receiving payment
though Visa,Mastercard and PayPal.

That would kill the penis patch/ porno video/ duff homeloan /weird and
illegal pharmaceuticals pushers dead in their tracks. No dosh, no
return, go rob a gas station.

The share pump'n'dumpers need a different approach. Create an
international list of dodgy mining / computer / electricity well
companies. Legislate (or regulate, which is better) in the co-operating
countries to criminalise all trading in their shares, and have them
struck out from the markets.

It would be much more effective than the War Against Moisture at the
airport.

Philip

 
Reply With Quote
 
jasen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
On 2006-12-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
> In message <4579e7d6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
>> grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
>> only to then get refused for some other reason.

>
> What sort of other reason?


server too busy, bad address, mailbox full, surely you've had bounced email before.



--

Bye.
Jasen
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
In message <eldf8t$b25$(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.org>, jasen wrote:

> On 2006-12-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <4579e7d6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
>>> grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
>>> only to then get refused for some other reason.

>>
>> What sort of other reason?

>
> server too busy, bad address, mailbox full, surely you've had bounced
> email before.


But those are all reasons why the mail would have failed to be delivered
anyway, greylisting didn't make any difference.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
Enkidu wrote:
> thingy wrote:
>> http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=196602463
>>
>> I find it interesting that few mention grey listing, yet it is highly
>> effective. Of course these are marketing sound bites from companies
>> floging anti-spam products/services.....
>>

> Grey-listing is a terrible idea that creates extra load on already
> stressed mail servers, and which won't take long for SPAMmers to
> circumvent anyway.


People have been saying that for 2 years+ it has not happened yet.
Spammers have circumvented any other method eg image spam and document
spam. Yet grey listing has not been defeated. The botnets are built for
speed greylisting will force them to re-try, the overhead for that means
less psma per hour and some decent re-writes of their code.

If grey-listing becomes prevalent then SPAMmers will
> just adjust their armies of bots to try several times, just like a
> legitimate SMTP server would.


You could say the same about any other anti-spam technology.

> Grey-listing can result in two or three or more attempts to deliver
> email,


Only the first time and then you can white list.

depending on the clash between retry parameters that the two ends
> of the link decide upon.


If the servers are overloaded with spam that happens anyway.

It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
> grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
> only to then get refused for some other reason.
>
> People have unreal expectations of email. They expect it to be delivered
> almost instantly. Try explaining to the CEO's PA that her important
> email won't get delivered for maybe an hour because some 'soul with an
> R' grey-listed her email.


or explain to her spending another 50k on on another 2 email servers
cause the two we have are now being overloaded several times an hour by
distributed spam.

> Cheers,
>
> Cliff


Sorry your arguments lacks any weight, mine are based on successful
deployment.

Add in that even if grey listing works for another year before it is
defeated, that is a year of way less spam.

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <eldf8t$b25$(E-Mail Removed)-a-geek.org>, jasen wrote:
>
>> On 2006-12-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <4579e7d6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Enkidu wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
>>>> grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
>>>> only to then get refused for some other reason.
>>> What sort of other reason?

>> server too busy, bad address, mailbox full, surely you've had bounced
>> email before.

>
> But those are all reasons why the mail would have failed to be delivered
> anyway, greylisting didn't make any difference.


like duh...

I agree, and its probably down to the server having to process all that
spam, or the mailbox being full of spam and well a bad address is a bad
address....that is not the fault of the receiving server and user, that
is down to typos by the sender.

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
jasen wrote:
> On 2006-12-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <4579e7d6$(E-Mail Removed)>, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> It's common for a SMTP server to contact a
>>> grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a message,
>>> only to then get refused for some other reason.

>> What sort of other reason?

>
> server too busy, bad address, mailbox full, surely you've had bounced email before.
>
>
>


This is nothing to do with grey-listing and frequently to do with spam.

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2006
Philip wrote:
> Enkidu wrote:
>> thingy wrote:
>>> http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=196602463
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that few mention grey listing, yet it is highly
>>> effective. Of course these are marketing sound bites from companies
>>> floging anti-spam products/services.....
>>>

>> Grey-listing is a terrible idea that creates extra load on already
>> stressed mail servers, and which won't take long for SPAMmers to
>> circumvent anyway. If grey-listing becomes prevalent then SPAMmers
>> will just adjust their armies of bots to try several times, just like
>> a legitimate SMTP server would.
>>
>> Grey-listing can result in two or three or more attempts to deliver
>> email, depending on the clash between retry parameters that the two
>> ends of the link decide upon. It's common for a SMTP server to contact
>> a grey-listing site, try up to three or four times to deliver a
>> message, only to then get refused for some other reason.
>>
>> People have unreal expectations of email. They expect it to be
>> delivered almost instantly. Try explaining to the CEO's PA that her
>> important email won't get delivered for maybe an hour because some
>> 'soul with an R' grey-listed her email.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Cliff
>>

> I wonder if there is not a case for law enforcement agencies worldwide
> to work, perhaps through an agency like Interpol, to identify the actual
> beneficiaries of spam - the people that will receive the money.
>
> It shouldn't be that difficult to create a list of organisations that
> could be subject to blocking orders banning them from receiving payment
> though Visa,Mastercard and PayPal.
>
> That would kill the penis patch/ porno video/ duff homeloan /weird and
> illegal pharmaceuticals pushers dead in their tracks. No dosh, no
> return, go rob a gas station.
>
> The share pump'n'dumpers need a different approach. Create an
> international list of dodgy mining / computer / electricity well
> companies. Legislate (or regulate, which is better) in the co-operating
> countries to criminalise all trading in their shares, and have them
> struck out from the markets.
>
> It would be much more effective than the War Against Moisture at the
> airport.
>
> Philip
>



given the pedophiles, heroine drug runners and other serious low life, I
cannot see Interpol spending tie on spam......dont think I'd want to either.

regards

Thing





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CurrentElement->next = CurrentElement->next->next (UNDEFINED?) Deniz Bahar C Programming 2 03-09-2005 12:45 AM
Spam-Spam and more Spam C A Preston Computer Support 2 04-12-2004 07:15 PM



Advertisments