> On Jul 29, 2016, at 10:12 AM, @lbutlr <krem...@kreme.com> wrote: > > On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:20, sha...@shanew.net wrote: >> I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come >> before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging, >> etc.). > > Greylisting is a great idea, in theory. In practice there are so many large > emailers who can’t do email properly that is causes more trouble than it > prevents. > >
I second that. I've tried gray listing a couple of times, and all I got from my users (and as the logs end up showing) is that some emails systems do not re-attempt delivery in an adequate enough time to be relevant to our business processes. When purchasing is waiting for confirmation of a hot rush delivery from a new vendor, gray listing can more than cause a few calls to the IT department. I also have to agree with John Hardin. At what point does the advice not become worth the slap in the face it comes with. As much as your advice has its merits Harald, it is also, very narrow sighted. You often make assumptions about implementation, and when you find an implementation (or a persons understanding of it) contrary to your standards, you chalk it up to ignorance, and make sure the list knows what you think of that person. The reality is most of us (the other 99%) are not dedicated mail admins. I for one am a software engineer, who happens to also have to do network engineering, systems engineering, and half a dozen other hats. This is why I am on this list, so I can be kept a breast of what other people are dealing with and in the process learn something. > >
