Re: [exim] Exim has a bad queue handling?

Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Daniel Tiefnig wrote:
>> As I really[0] don't like greylisting and welcome everything that
>> may cause people stop doing it, I don't comment any further on
>> this. :o)
>
> Ah, but the problem being discussed here is not affecting the people
> doing the greylisting[*], but it is affecting other parties who are
> trying to send them mail.

Yes, yes, I know. With "everything that may cause people stop doing it"
I just include myself not being able to send them e-mail. (Or, the other
way round, them not being able to receive mail from me.)

> I can imagine situations where the greylisters won't listen to client
> postmasters asking them to stop "because my MTA can't deal sensibly
> with it". One obvious response is "fix your MTA".

Well, the response to that should be "Don't brake email and then expect
ME to fix it". Loosing, or at least delaying, e-mail is the main feature
of greylisting.
As I understand that this is not very helpful in most situations, I
don't want to argue against making exim smarter in that regard.
Actually, I once even asked here on the list whether we should do
something about this, but I got no answer. (Maybe I was asking the wrong
questions.)

> In this day and age, where more and more sophisticated checking is
> being done, one can argue that this is no longer necessarily the
> case.

With rather weird values of "sophisticated", yes.

>> The default, of course, should not change current behaviour.
>
> Having thought more about this, I am not so sure of that.

Hmm, how about switching it on in the default config, but not "in exim"?
Just being conservative.


lg,
daniel