> 21. apr. 2021 kl. 21:34 skrev John Levine via mailop <mailop@mailop.org>: > > It appears that Peter Nicolai Mathias Hansteen via mailop <pe...@bsdly.net> > said: >> Greylisting implementations tend to expect retries to come from the same IP >> address as the original one. Some of us are still quite cross that >> the writers-of-RFCs did not care to make that a MUST requirement (see [1] >> for my grumble on that from a while back). > > SMTP was defined in the late 1970s and we didn't invent greylisting > until about 2003. I don't think you can blame them for not being > clairvoyant.
No clairvoyance was required for taking account of greylisting in the 2008 update that the article was about, but you’re probably right in a largish chunk of cases about this bit: > I find that fuzzing the IP addresses to anything in the same ipv4 /24 > or ipv6 /64 handles most of the different IP retries without letting > any more spam through. Cheers, Peter — Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
