Fred Viles wrote:
>On 19 Feb 2005 at 18:55, Marc Perkel wrote about
> "Re: [exim] 5 Minute Penalty Box":
>
>| >| And I do want to return a 4XX code because this
>| >| is where message are probably spam - but may not be - and I want the
>| >| non-spam to try again. I'm counting on the spammer email to go away.
>| >
>| >I think you're misunderstanding Marc's point, Marc. The ACL snippet
>| >you posted doesn't show you deferring the first bad address, it shows
>| >you accepting it. Presumably you catch it with a later deny (why
>| >would you *accept* an invalid recipient?), but why not make the warn
>| >you showed a deny instead?
>|
>| Yes - I accept the first one - at this level.
>
>But *why*? It's not necessary as part of your greylist variant.
>
>
In the case of failed recipient - I agree. I'm greylisting on a number
of conditions some of which might be blocking legitimate email. For
those other conditions I let one pass to the next level every 5 minutes
- so if the message is legit it gets through - eventually.
--
Marc Perkel - marc@???
Spam Filter: http://www.junkemailfilter.com
My Blog: http://marc.perkel.com
My Religion: http://www.churchofreality.org
~ "If it's real - we believe in it!" ~
