Hi
>> And that's why I hold the opinion that the implementation of
>> greylisting is somewhat equal to "wasting other people's resources".
>
> I completely agree with that.
Perhaps this can be considered middle ground. Look at my earlier post in this thread on limiting greylisting to those hosts who are not properly configured: they don't say helo properly, they don't have valid reverse lookups, they are on RBLs, their emails don't have message_ids, etc. If a real smtp server displays those properties then surely they deserve an hour delay? And, if the admin of those servers scans his logs every so often he might find an 451 error message telling him exactly why his emails were deferred.
> PS: Don't get me wrong, this is nothing personal, I'm just very annoyed
> by all these wannabe spam solutions out there, that try to make fun
> with SMTP communication in one way or the other.
What to do: let spammers make profit with SMTP communications or have admins make fun with SMTP communications ;-) Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know of a study which tries to determine which costs more: deferred emails in a queue or volumes of spam taking up CPU cycles and memory in spamassassin. I guess its a diskspace versus cpu/ram thing?
Cheers,
Ryan
