Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please
Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:46, Thomas Bushnell BSG <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be
>> > acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not
>> > helpful.
>> I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false
>> positive sender to know they have run afoul, and in which the
>> maintainers of the mechanism promise to try and adjust the system so
>> that the false-positive in question doesn't recur, taking
>> responsibility for false positives.
> So the CBL is fine then.
Depending on how it is used, yes. It must be used in a way which is
something other than just bit-bucketing messages, because then the
sender can't tell that damage has occurred. One way to handle this is
to use it only to produce SMTP-level errors.