Comments on: Microsoft Blacklist Strategy Swaps Accuracy For MS’s Convenience http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/ Spam, Security, Privacy, Spyware, Phishing & Viruses from the Front Lines. Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:32:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: CThom http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1031 Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:47:28 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1031 Charlie --> check out this EB story --> http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/spam_aaebfdaich_if/.<br> <br> EB's linking to research by CIPHERTRUST. Yuh think they sell THAT spam appliance too??? Sh*thed. Charlie –> check out this EB story –> http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/spam_aaebfdaich_if/.

EB’s linking to research by CIPHERTRUST. Yuh think they sell THAT spam appliance too??? Sh*thed.

]]> by: BJ http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1030 Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:17:51 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1030 Hi Charlie and Matthias.<br> RE: IMTS *is* greylisting... ridiculous invention of a new term, etc.<br> The "IMTS" process is not conventional greylisting. It differs in important ways. I've added a discussion of the difference to the article. If we called IMTS greylisting, greylisting fanboys would be up in arms. It's up to others to decide whether ITMS or greylisting makes more sense for their needs. <br> <br> Inbound message traffic shaping, by any name, is not suitable for every environment. Neither is greylisting... or blacklists as guardians of the front door.<br> <br> This approach ratchets the risk of losing important communications to a level many may find unacceptable; thus, not suitable for every environment.<br> <br> I'm with Paul Graham. I don't believe it's possible to maintain *wiseness* in a blacklist indefinitely.<br> <br> SPECIAL NOTE TO CHARLIE: Sorry I didn't buy some other email gateway to provide a counterweight for the questionable rationalization behind using blacklists as your front door. Other brands could prove the same point. But doggone it, Charlie, I had a tMI setting on the shelf. What would *you* have used? BTW: Nice technique for diversion from the point of the discussion. I bet it works great on your spouse. Hi Charlie and Matthias.
RE: IMTS *is* greylisting… ridiculous invention of a new term, etc.
The “IMTS” process is not conventional greylisting. It differs in important ways. I’ve added a discussion of the difference to the article. If we called IMTS greylisting, greylisting fanboys would be up in arms. It’s up to others to decide whether ITMS or greylisting makes more sense for their needs.

Inbound message traffic shaping, by any name, is not suitable for every environment. Neither is greylisting… or blacklists as guardians of the front door.

This approach ratchets the risk of losing important communications to a level many may find unacceptable; thus, not suitable for every environment.

I’m with Paul Graham. I don’t believe it’s possible to maintain *wiseness* in a blacklist indefinitely.

SPECIAL NOTE TO CHARLIE: Sorry I didn’t buy some other email gateway to provide a counterweight for the questionable rationalization behind using blacklists as your front door. Other brands could prove the same point. But doggone it, Charlie, I had a tMI setting on the shelf. What would *you* have used? BTW: Nice technique for diversion from the point of the discussion. I bet it works great on your spouse.

]]> by: Matthias Leisi http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1029 Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:39:32 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1029 "IMTS", as you call it (or "grey-listing" as it is generally referred to) is not a good solution for all situations. <br> <br> Especially if you have a distributed incoming mail setup with multiple mail servers, you effectively go back to a single point of failure -- all machines must share a pool of "seen" sending IP addresses. <br> <br> On the other hand, *wisely* selected blacklists will be both effective and will not jeopardize your careful distributed setup. “IMTS”, as you call it (or “grey-listing” as it is generally referred to) is not a good solution for all situations.

Especially if you have a distributed incoming mail setup with multiple mail servers, you effectively go back to a single point of failure — all machines must share a pool of “seen” sending IP addresses.

On the other hand, *wisely* selected blacklists will be both effective and will not jeopardize your careful distributed setup.

]]> by: mick http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1028 Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:45:33 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1028 Charlie,<br> You're a dip****.<br> Were you required to open your wallet to read any of the articles or use any of the free tools on this site? Neither was I.<br> This article is one of the first that I've noticed any product mentioned. Charlie,
You’re a dip****.
Were you required to open your wallet to read any of the articles or use any of the free tools on this site? Neither was I.
This article is one of the first that I’ve noticed any product mentioned.

]]> by: Charlie http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1027 Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:33:12 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1027 I was about to comment on this article's ridiculous invention of a new term to describe greylisting ... until I noticed that this is a marketing site from a mail appliance vendor. I was about to comment on this article’s ridiculous invention of a new term to describe greylisting … until I noticed that this is a marketing site from a mail appliance vendor.

]]> by: Wally http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1026 Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:09:02 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/07/11/spam_aaebefcfac_cf/#comment-1026 MS Rule of Order:<br> 1. ms <br> 2. ms <br> 3. ms<br> 4. ms<br> 5. johns <br> what did you expect? MS Rule of Order:
1. ms
2. ms
3. ms
4. ms
5. johns
what did you expect?

]]>