Stuck in the greylist

Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com
Tue Dec 23 20:20:27 UTC 2003


> From: "John R Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>

> ...
> In any event, I realize that not using body checksums makes it more likely
> that a spammer will deliberately or accidentally spoof a resend by making
> another spam run a day later with the same envelopes, but it's hard for me
> to consider a design that's known to reject legit mail as much of a
> feature.
>
> It appears that the semantic resends all keep the same fuz2.  How about
> (optionally at least) using that rather than the body checksum in the
> greylist?  That'll let through the semantic resends while still being
> resilient against multiple spam runs.

How one answers that question may depend on how one sees the dccifd
and dccm greylisting being used.  These examples all seem to involve
bulk mail.  If the DCC is being used, then the bulk mail must be
whitelisted or it will be rejected as spam.  Only if the dccifd and
dccm greylisting is used without the DCC would using the naive body
checksum be a problem instead of a desirable feature.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.