On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:55:05PM +0200, Claudius wrote: > On 2012-04-17 12:04, Sam Jones wrote: > > > And I would add that an inbound MX does not necessarily === the > > same outbound server a domain would use. Typically anti-spam > > gateways or hosted services used inbound on one IP, whereas > > outbound mail coming from another IP and server. > > > > Just imagine whitelisting a shared, spammy server because a > > domain is hosted on it. Naturally it will probably come through > > greylisting in the end anyway, but I'd not go out of my way to > > make it easy on them! > > > Valid point, thanks for the input.
Eh, I'd call that a red herring. > That's why I decided to white-list > with a date in the past. In case there is no reply the > white-list goes away soon. > The main idea of this script was to have faster replies for mails > to people we have sent mail ourselves. Some mail servers have > ridiculously long retry periods and waiting an hour for a mail > "just sent" made people impatient. This actually helped a lot. > I could do a SPF lookup to white-list the outgoing remote servers > though. That would make sense. As long as your whitelist merely bypasses greylisting you're not going to cause much harm with it. > On 2012-04-17 11:50, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > are you aware that you are whitelisting this way > > servers which sent spam to a user with autorply? > > > Haven't actually though about that. Thanks for bringing it up. I > guess filtering autoreplies would be a good idea if I can figure > out how. In itself this is not a significant issue. An autoreply to spam is rarely going to go to the spammer: it will go to an innocent third party, or to an address which is not valid. -- http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
