On 15 Jun 2005, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 18:43 +0200, Steffen Heil wrote:
> > I don't want to take this into account, since I do greylisting at RCPT
> > time.
>
> But that presumably means you're doing greylisting unconditionally. It
> makes a lot more sense only to do it for mail which is actually
> considered suspicious for some reason.
>
> Otherwise you just end up delaying a lot of good mail for no reason.
Isn't that really kind of the whole point? If the mail
is legitimate (ideally), the remote side will resend in a bit and
the tuplet will be recognized as valid at that point for some set
period of time (few weeks to months normally).
I know at the university where I work we use greylisting
universally on our external mail relays. We have the occasional
issue with remote SMTP hosts which are simply broken and we
either get them to fix their junk servers or make an exception if
all else fails. This seems to work pretty well.
Outside of the initial delay for the first message, any
regular e-mail traffic will flow normally as it should. You have
to keep an eye on known mailing list hosts of course whenever
they change the envelope sender for each message sent from a list
and just add the exception as needed.
--
Mark Nipper e-contacts:
4475 Carter Creek Parkway nipsy@???
Apartment 724 http://nipsy.bitgnome.net/
Bryan, Texas, 77802-4481 AIM/Yahoo: texasnipsy ICQ: 66971617
(979)575-3193 MSN: nipsy@???
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GG/IT d- s++:+ a- C++$ UBL++++$ P--->+++ L+++$ !E---
W++(--) N+ o K++ w(---) O++ M V(--) PS+++(+) PE(--)
Y+ PGP t+ 5 X R tv b+++@ DI+(++) D+ G e h r++ y+(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
---begin random quote of the moment---
"Give us this day our daily Faith, but deliver us, dear God, from
Belief."
-- Aldous Huxley, _Island_, 1962
----end random quote of the moment----
