On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:09:07 -0500, replies-lists-redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <replies-lists-redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > as someone who has had responsibility for large, time-sensitive, > mailings, i think that greylisting is bad. it pushes a high resource > cost back on the (legit) sender. while it may reduce the amount of spam > you get, it basically doesn't change the spammer's costs. also, since > they are dealing with percentages, that the one message to you doesn't > get delivered does little in terms of their effectiveness. > > i have found that using dnsbl to block acceptance from dynamic > ipaddress assignments and open relays, along with a well-tuned > spamassassin implementation basically rids my mailboxes of spam. in the > end i get max 1 untagged spam delivered to my mailbox per day -- for an > e-mail address that has been in public use for about 10 years. > Thank you --- whoever you are (unnamed account), for your comments. I do agree that with time sensitive situations greylisting could certainly be problematic. Fortunately, for this particular box, there is nothing time sensitive about any of the communications. Most of it is casual e-mails, and friend/family stuff. So I don't think that would be a major concern. I do have one of my accounts protected by DNSBL and TMDA. Since March of 2003, only 8 pieces of spam have gotten through, and in the first year of that configuration, logs showed that over 89000 spam mails were blocked. I guess what I was hoping for was that by using greylisting, some of those 89000 messages could have been managed with less resources than DNSBL or TMDA would have used. David ----------------------------------------------------------------------- There are only 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.
