On 19 Feb 1997 21:55:30 -0800, you wrote:
"KD" == Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> writes:
KD> or a 421 error, which keeps the spam at the source (loading the KD> spammers mailserver -- a GOOD thing!)
Are you joking? There's not a spammer alive that uses sendmail or something that would similiarly requeue on temporary failure.
KD> Much more elegant, in my opinion.
Assuming that 'sendspam' would actually maintain a queue.
Paul's solution has its own elegance: raising the price for allowing antisocial behavior from bounced email to partial loss of connectivity. But like Paul said, raising the stakes like that just invites someone to try and one up him.
What's so elegant about that if a spammer with elementary knowledge about SMTP and DNS can easily bounce his stuff off of any of the thousands of unsuspecting hosts and/or use unsuspecting forwarding name servers in the slave mode?
Daniel Simms There is more than one way to burn a book.
Dima