* Chris Horry <zer...@wibble.co.uk>: > On 9/18/2012 16:36, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: [postscreen after-220 tests] > > Those tests are useful, nonetheless :) > > Definitely, my only problem is that I've seen greylisting cause > legitimate (admittedly due to poorly configured mail servers) mail to > get lost.
I consider it a very sad state of affairs that even in 2012 there is obviously MTA software that still cannot handle a temporary error, or is misconfigured to not being able to. I just took the time to do a quick check on what MTAs are offered by popular Unix flavours nowadays, September 2012, mind you (and by "offered" I mean "come pre-packaged, as port or whatever"). Apart from one-shot MTA replacements without a queuing mechanism, I couldn't identify a single software or a single configuration provided by a package/port maintainer that had a problem with temporary failures. "/bin/date" says it's September 2012. It is ridiculous that we still have to worry about losing legitimate mail whenever one of our MXs has a temporary problem - with a protocol that has failsafes built into it's very specifications. Oh, do I feel better now that I vented my frustration :) Stefan
