Spam and extra MX records

[Ben Scott]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Bill McGonigle <bill at bfccomputing.com> wrote:
>> Personally, I also find these kinds of strategies very rude.  You're
>> increasing *my* mail server's load because *you're* not willing to
>> implement a proper anti-spam solution.
>
>  How about if we're both increasing each others' mail server loads
> in an effort to combat spam?

  Hmmmm.  I guess my issue is that you're deciding to increase my load
to help you.  I don't get a vote.  All I can do is respond in kind, by
increasing your load to help me.

>> I'm against these kinds of things because they are
>> a doomed strategy.  If enough people start doing it, the
>> spammers *will* adapt.
>
>  Doesn't that pretty much define every anti-spam technique short of
> per-sender whitelisting?

  Not really.  The problem with things like greylisting and nolisting
is they're a quick-fix.  All it takes is an adjustment by the spammers
and we're back to square one.  Game over in one move.  There are lots
of anti-spam methods that spammers can try to counter, but which they
can't simply switch off.  They can dodge blacklists, but they can't
make blacklists totally ineffective by a software change.  They can
try to craft their payload to slip through filters, but they can't
bypass all filters at once.  Etc.

-- Ben