Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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