Re: [exim] SMTP callbacks and greylisting

Hello,

Jakob Hirsch schrieb:

> V. T. Mueller wrote:
>
>> In fact, I'm quite p****d about folks using greylisting in a way
that
>> SMTP callbacks are rendered useless: we reject mail temporarily
since the callback is deferred by greylisting at the sending site.


> What makes you think that your FUSSP-attempt is any better than
theirs?
> I'm not really a friend of greylisting (if used in a
one-size-fits-all
> manner, where simply everything is delayed), but if someone does
anything unusual in his MTA he should be prepared to get strange
results.


As I mailed Dean privately (where I also admitted that the tone of
my mail was unappropriate), we use callbacks to satisfy legal
requirements and enjoy the side-effect of decreased workload for SA.

> What's the usual minimum greylisting-delay, something like 5
minutes? I think that's a little long to keep the connection open
and the sending MTA may drop it meanwhile.


Agreed. Sigh.

> You could add defer_ok to your callout acl statement, delay in
the next one if the callout failed and make a new callout statement
(if the previous one failed, of course). You have to find out how to
check that the callout was rejected with a temporary error.


Unfortunately, due to the local requirements the defer_ok is not an
option.
In the meantime, I got the remote siteadmin contacted who will
contact the mailadmin. I guess this will fix things and our
workaround will be filtering the rejectlog and applying some human
ressources there... :/

Kind regards,
vt