On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:54, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
If people keep accepting broken implementation as the status quo,
we're
going to keep getting people who leave broken implementations in
place.
I have to agree with you on that one. Greylisting is no more non-
standard
than saying "I'm kind of having problems right now; please try again
later". If a machine breaks on greylisting, then any number of other
unintentional problems with also break it. On the positive side,
so many
servers are adopting greylisting that I suspect servers that can't
handle
it will get fixed rather quickly.
That is not the issue though. Lots of servers, especially public
mail providers, have tried greylisting and rejected it because
their user base complains that mail is delayed and they want to know
that their mail that their client, support people, etc just sent to
them will get there quickly, not 15 minutes, or 30 minutes, or
whatever, later. The biggest problems with greylisting are not the
broken servers who do not retry -- you can work around them -- it is
that the incoming mail is delayed and users don't like it. Now if
you have a mail server just for yourself or a special userbase this
may not apply to you. And this is why combining greylisting with
spamassassin or other antispam software is appealing -- you only grey
list those mails you have a good suspicion are actually spam. You do
not greylist all mails and so your userbase is happy since their
expected email is not delayed.
Chad
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
