Fighting spam via greylisting

Ag. D. Hatzimanikas a.hatzim at gmail.com
Wed Apr 25 13:43:18 PDT 2007


On Thu, Apr 19, at 11:29 Felix M. Palmen wrote:
> * TheOldFellow <theoldfellow at gmail.com> [20070419 20:12]:
> > I don't really want to prolong this as an argument, Felix, but technical
> > is only one domain of interest here.  PRACTICAL is the interesting
> > aspect.  Greylisting works.
> 
> Partly, at best. The majority of spam I see here is already sent twice.
> Guess why.
> 
> > From the perspective of the recipient of
> > email, there is no cost.  All the cost is in the transmission of the
> > email to the recipient - WHO DID NOT REQUEST IT. QED.
> 
> This is just brain-dead. If you don't want to receive mail, don't run a
> mail-server. The cost for greylisting doesn't hit (in most cases) the
> sender of the mail but some third-party servers. Of course this doesn't
> bother /you/, but this is antisocial behaviour.
> 

So it's not a question of violation of some specs/standards but more like an 
ethical question or "fair behavior" :)  [ like the fair scheduler discussion
these days. Hint: Watch the Dr. Colivas mailing lists, there is a hell of 
good discussion ] 
 -- at least that is my impression so far and that is what I got from
the first place. 

Here is some kind of Synopsis.

There is the claim that by doing greylisting, we add extra load/traffic to 
the mail-servers/network, so more or less it brings the opposite result.


I tend to agree, and I am thinking that will be wise to open a ticket in 
Track; -- but where (*) -- record the whole thing and keeping open for a while.

Felix, do you want to submit it? if you don't I would do it, if I find the chance
in the next days.

[*] I don't think the LFS Track is the right place for these kind of tickets 
    and also, this discussion *doesn't* belong here! It was wrong placed here
    from the first time.
    
    <parenthesis>
    Another thing.
    I sympathize Jeremy and I apologize to him - he knows, I believe that I like 
    him much as few here - 
    but as my good friend :) Randy said, there had to be a discussion first for
    this change. 
    As you see, there were reactions - legitimate I think, although still it's up 
    to community to decide - so there had to be this kind of discussion first.
    </parenthesis>

    There are many many more issues like this one.
    As you might saw there is an issue that raised by Randy about advertisement.
    Also there are some huge issues with the organization of the
    project. See and you will surprised.
    http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/website/2007-April/006356.html
    Even our leader he doesn't know who is responsible and for what? 
    I don't blame Gerard, I blame to us. We have to take the situation
    in our hands and help Gerard, that we know how busy is.
    Jim is very busy with CLFS and he has months to update the patches
    repo.
    Someone has to assist him. 
    Same with the hints project, although Tushar is active from time to 
    time, he also needs a second hand.
    Release Managers.
    Also there might a better and easier way for people to submit ideas to extend 
    existing projects or implement new ones, by creating new branches or 
    whatever. Who decides for these things? It's a misty ground, at
    minimum.
	
    Also there *has* to be a general mailing-list; no matter if we 
    are all friends here, sometimes such a neutral list is a relief.
    We humans, we are full of pride. :)

    And there more but I am afraid, but I would be punished hard, if I add
    more. 

    Anyway, it's not the END OF THE WORLD. 
    Yet.

    Best Regards,

PS.
I also want to thank, USM Bish because he pointed me in a bug in a document, where
I took my info, which speaks for 450 code, but is 451.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list