Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Christian Balzer wrote:
>
>> Did I miss some long, shrill and painful thread where greylisting
>> was branded as another bane of the internot like SPF or callout
>> verifications? (and for the record, I would agree with that assessment
>> for the later two, in varying degrees though)
>
>It does tend to be difficult to scale across anything but a single box
>
While I'm fairly well aware of the size of your operation, the specific
implementation (1) I'm looking at here does scale fairly well. At least
well enough for my setup here, which is anything but a single box. ;)
>And it slows down delivery from legitimate providers just so that grief
>can be caused to the spammers - which is bad again.
>
Again something this implementation is trying to avoid by design.
Aside from the little detail that greylisting, like all other spam
avoidance options here, is just that: a per user option.
Grief to spammers is something like teergrubing, they suffer a bit, but
the spam gets thru eventually. Whereas with greylisting the chances of
it never making it through are quite high, so that qualifies more in the
"hurting" department in my book.
(1)
http://users.aber.ac.uk/auj/spam/
Regards,
Christian Balzer
--
Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer NOC
chibi@??? Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Network Services
http://www.gol.com/
