Re: greylisting on debian.org?
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> martin f krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> > That's better than not greylisting anyone. Nobody is trying to
> >> > design the perfect spam filter. We just want to reduce spam on
> >> > debian.org.
> >> A perfect spam filter is one which catches all spam and bounces no
> >> valid mail. Saying "we aren't trying to be perfect" is ambiguous
> >> about which imperfections you are willing to tolerate.
> >> I would like you to be explicit and clear about which valid mail you
> >> will be bouncing, rather than vague and inspecific.
> > It was pretty clear for anyone actually reading the messages. The error is
> > in the "safe side", i.e. let stuff through the graylisting without delaying
> > it.
> Huh? This makes no sense to me.
You do not graylist, i.e. you let it through the graylisting stage
The specific example used was some spam source sitting in the same /27
netblock in a colo server room, and getting through the graylister because
a proper MTA from the same /27 netblock had already been added to the
"approve it, it does retries" list of the graylister.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot