[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> >> 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.

The standard way of using DNSBLs is to give a SMTP 55x code, so it satisfies 
your criteria.

http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

Reply to: