> Any drawbacks to that? Is this what you mean:
>
> # --lookup-by-subnet strip the last 8 bits from IP addresses (default)
Yep this one and no drawbacks I can think of.
Cool, it's the default anyway.
> Why wouldn't the email be returned to the sender in case 1?
Because number 1
Grant wrote:
Any drawbacks to that? Is this what you mean:
# --lookup-by-subnet strip the last 8 bits from IP addresses (default)
Yep this one and no drawbacks I can think of.
Why wouldn't the email be returned to the sender in case 1?
Because number 1 is entirely composed of newslet
> How exactly are legitimate messages lost through greylisting? I've
> come up with these:
>
> 1. legitimate messages that don't retry (someone mentioned Amazon
> newsletters)
The postgrey whitelist included in the build covers some of the major
ones. I'd question these being legitimate emails a
> Greylisting seems to be the most effective way of eliminating unwanted
> email. The problem is that it also has the potential to eliminate a
> legitimate email. Couldn't a feature be added to greylisting software
> that dispatches an email to the sender of any email that is
> temporarily rejec
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:55:45 -0700, Grant wrote:
> Forged
> addresses could be a problem though. Is there any way to verify that
> the sender address is legitimate without sending an email there?
The real problem is that the forged addresses are often real. I get
enough spam without adding to it
Grant wrote:
Greylisting seems to be the most effective way of eliminating unwanted
email. The problem is that it also has the potential to eliminate a
legitimate email. Couldn't a feature be added to greylisting software
that dispatches an email to the sender of any email that is
temporarily r
> No, thats just silly. That would send a reply to every email that is a
> spam. Most spam has non-existent (or forged) "from" address, which
> means the mail will just bounce or go to someone whose address has been
> forged.
And the rest will confirm to the spammer that they have a valid address
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:04:40 +1200, Nick Rout wrote:
> No, thats just silly. That would send a reply to every email that is a
> spam. Most spam has non-existent (or forged) "from" address, which
> means the mail will just bounce or go to someone whose address has been
> forged.
And the rest will
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:30:48 -0700
Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greylisting seems to be the most effective way of eliminating unwanted
> email. The problem is that it also has the potential to eliminate a
> legitimate email. Couldn't a feature be added to greylisting software
> that dispat
> >Greylisting seems to be the most effective way of eliminating unwanted
> >email. The problem is that it also has the potential to eliminate a
> >legitimate email. Couldn't a feature be added to greylisting software
> >that dispatches an email to the sender of any email that is
> >temporarily
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:38:37PM -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 8/28/06, Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Greylisting seems to be the most effective way of eliminating unwanted
> >email. The problem is that it also has the potential to eliminate a
> >legitimate email. Couldn't a feature be
On 8/28/06, Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greylisting seems to be the most effective way of eliminating unwanted
email. The problem is that it also has the potential to eliminate a
legitimate email. Couldn't a feature be added to greylisting software
that dispatches an email to the sender of
Greylisting seems to be the most effective way of eliminating unwanted
email. The problem is that it also has the potential to eliminate a
legitimate email. Couldn't a feature be added to greylisting software
that dispatches an email to the sender of any email that is
temporarily rejected and do
13 matches
Mail list logo
