I find that it is generally more of a matter of which side you choose to err
on. ;) In this case, since an error can only result in some spam missing a
graylist test I would argue that it is better to err on the side of people
with strange callout addresses rather than trying to hit exactly a single
address. That said, it's an opinion. I think the potential downside is very
low and it solves the problem of delayed mail from those senders. If others
have the time an inclination to whitelist that pattern of addresses only,
more power to them. ;)
-David
On Tuesday 28 September 2004 10:12 pm, Matt wrote: > David Powers wrote:
> > May I suggest going along much simpler lines and just matching on
> > antispam in the local_part? Not only will the match be foolproof, but
> > it has a shot at catching other addresses like this being used for
> > similar purposes and requires less cpu time per address coming in. The
> > odds of a spammer using antispam in the localpart are pretty low and
> > probably a risk worth taking.
>
> It is always far better to be as specific as possible with your initial
> setup, so that you don't waste time later on trying to track down a
> problem due to indiscriminate use of restrictions, blocking or
> whitelisting. Prevention is better than cure :)
>
> Matt
