Le mar 18 juillet 2006 00:08, Magnus Holmgren a écrit : > On Monday 17 July 2006 23:41, Pierre Habouzit took the opportunity to write: > > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 19:53, Adrian von Bidder a écrit : > > > So the question is, imho, not if we should potentially lock out > > > users of big mail pools - those are in the default whitelists > > > anyway by now. The question is: can we temporarily (until they > > > can be whitelisted) lock out users of > > > "standards?-who-needs-standards?" systems that don't implement > > > sensible queueing. Many of these sites are small - but there are > > > also a few bigger names: Yahoo groups, Amazon, Roche, Motorola. > > > (According to postgrey's default whitelist. Some of these are > > > from 2004 or earlier, and AFAIK nobody tries to verify if these > > > systems are still stupid in that way.) > > > > OTOH those systems are not listed on RBL's (or it does not last) > > and you won't greylist them. > > Which RBL's do you have in mind? I mean, some RBL's, like XBL/SBL, > are high-quality enough that you can outright reject. Others, like > SpamCop, are likely to include some of the bigger names from time to > time. DUL lists might be good candidates. I personnaly use DUL, rfc-ignorant and XBL/SBL. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp2f5U0a22np.pgp
Description: PGP signature