[sending systems that don't deal with greylisting] On Monday 17 July 2006 17:36, Magnus Holmgren wrote: [...] > Also, this kind of information can be > shared so that not every mail admin has to find it out himself by users > complaining.
Some data points: * the default greylist shipped by greylist is growing only quite slow, so apparently the big players are in there by now. * big pools are only the smallest part of that whitelist, so this discussion is a bit silly. The really problematic sites are not really rfc compliant: sites that don't retry at all, or that retry with different sender addresses (which from the pov of greylisting is the same, obviously.) So the question is, imho, not if we should potentially lock out users of big mail pools - those are in the default whitelists anyway by now. The question is: can we temporarily (until they can be whitelisted) lock out users of "standards?-who-needs-standards?" systems that don't implement sensible queueing. Many of these sites are small - but there are also a few bigger names: Yahoo groups, Amazon, Roche, Motorola. (According to postgrey's default whitelist. Some of these are from 2004 or earlier, and AFAIK nobody tries to verify if these systems are still stupid in that way.) cheers -- vbi -- Wie man sein Kind nicht nennen sollte: Hanno Ferr
pgpkWEMiGmTS2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
