On 14:10:04 Aug 30, Paul de Weerd wrote: > | > | Does the last sentence of the first paragraph above suggest this? > > The section you quoted refers to receiving, not sending mail (more > specifically, to source routing e-mail). >
Oh! > Can you point these out ? I've read the RFC and couldn't find any such > "strong suggestions" you speak of. > It is news to me that the RFC does not actually mandate retries from the same IP address as Peter M Hansteen wrote. > | Going by common sense however only those who don't comply with SMTP > | standards would do such a silly thing. > > Why is it a silly thing ? Why would only those who don't comply with > SMTP standards do it ? It's not in violation of 2821 (not that I could > find nor you have provided evidence for, at least). I dunno why but it seems like a violation to me. We will be left with no method to figure out who is retrying. > But this is not how the gmails of this internet currently work. At > this point in time, that means either whitelisting those senders you > deem a) trustworthy enough to not send you spam and b) important > enough to whitelist in the first place. Otherwise you risk missing > some mail because they're not retried from the same IP. Missing mails? This has never happened with me. Delayed yes but not missing them. > I have a `getwhite` script that updates my personal whitelist on a > daily basis. Since I consider GMail important enough to receive (that > is, some people send me e-mail I consider important from gmail) and I > think this party is trustworthy enough to not spam me, I have > whitelisted the Google SPF records in my script. I use the following > snippet (for those curious about my script, it's available at > http://www.weirdnet.nl/openbsd/cronjobs/getwhite) : > > host -t TXT _netblocks.google.com | tr ' ' \\n | grep ^ip4 | \ > cut -f2 -d':' >> $WHITELIST.new > I get a connection timed out error. > I don't believe there is a clean solution to this at the moment. I > love spamd, as it prevents *A LOT* of spam from reaching my MX in the > first place but it can be detrimental in certain cases such as these. I really do not think it is a spamd/greylisting issue. The real problem lies elsewhere. We may have to deal with it but it is not really our problem. -Girish
