On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 20:09 +0930, Tim wrote: > On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 17:55 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > I use greylisting on all mail servers that I administrate and I > > specifically use one that maintains a list of well known smtp servers > > such as yahoo - it's a rather substantial list and maintained so that > > pretty much obviates your point #1. > > > (fussy servers) > > > Point number 2 is well taken but in my experience, there aren't that > > many times this has come up (only once) and yes, that will cause an > > issue but again, I am able to whitelist the range of servers from that > > system. > > > (multi-rejects) > > The trouble with those problems is *having* to do something about them, > for something that should really manage itself (servers retrying to send > to a supposedly busy server, or whatever other reason for a try later > response). Or, more to the point, knowing that you have to do so, in > the first place. Alright if you do so, but a problem if you don't, or > you're one of those people who think that all collateral damage incurred > when rejecting spam is acceptable. Especially so if you're trying to > mail someone, and something out of your control is getting in the way. > > In theory, it's a clever technique. In practice, like all anti-spam > techniques, there are flies in the ointment. I don't mind people > suggesting it, or implementing it well. But it should be advised with > the appropriate precautions that you will need to manually add some > overrides. And unless you monitor logs (many won't), or hear about > problems in some other way (and many won't), you aren't going to know > that mail isn't getting through. > > I don't hold with the contention that people should simply put up with > email being inordinately delayed because it doesn't have to be instant. > A few minutes isn't usually too much of a problem, but occasionally is, > and anything more than a few seconds for an email to whiz around the > world, in this modern era of fast computing, isn't really excusable. > Mail taking hours is unacceptable. > > Having to change to another messaging format to overcome this isn't an > appropriate solution. There are plenty of cases where someone needs to > be sent something in writing, so the phone isn't appropriate, and > instant messaging tiny notes back and forth isn't, either. ---- 10 different mail servers and have used greylisting for more than 5 years and only whitelisted a few named mail servers for one company to whitelist a group of servers whose outbound mail queue could change the sending server one time is hardly what I would call collateral damage but you are so determined to make your weak point which I already conceded but I know it is of little to no consequence. Specifically, the whitelisted servers were all from a company that actually does supposedly opt-in mail spamming and this customer of mine was using them and it was slowing up their 'proofs' before they unleashed on their mail list. I have seen nothing in e-mail whose computing cost compared against spam control has even come close to matching greylisting and while I can see it would create problems for an ISP, corporate mail servers should not live without greylisting. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
