On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:04:28PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > > Greylisting is a decent idea, but it seems to me that it's just another > > tool in the ongoing arms race against spammers. It may work for a while, > > but eventually they'll catch on and it will only cause unnecessary delays > > for legitimate mail. > > > > finally some cares about the users here, that is a really important > point, how do you justify that your client get the email he is waiting > for an hour later? Probably he looks then for a better service > provider ...
The standard requires a retry time of at least 30 minutes: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2821#section-4.5.3 But most open-source MTA's will try to resend after around 15 minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greylisting Note that the SMTP protocol does not guarantee delivery within a certain timeframe. There are timeouts of several minutes for each of the SMTP commands. This means that a full SMTP conversation can last at least 1/2 hour, from one server to another. In short, an extra hour transit time is not a fault or bad service as far as SMTP is concerned. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
pgpWD0mXgHI29.pgp
Description: PGP signature
