Re: greylisting on debian.org?
* Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2006-07-17 18:43]:
> It's not uncommon for big sites to have pools of high throughput
> machines that don't have qrunners, and larger pools of machines that do.
> The first group gets a message, and tries to deliver immediately, and
> any temporary failure gets the messages shunted to the secondary pool.
> Once in the secondary pool, it can be bounced from machine to machine
> to load balance queue size and so on.
> That being said, the original query about this was a strawman argument
> designed specifically to find a problem, and I would say fairly
> confidently we don't need to worry about this. I have analyzed the logs
> on mail servers I have access to, and I cannot find any site which passes
> a message between more than a half dozen or at most a dozen IP addresses
> before delivery. This is two or three orders of magnitude less than
> the kind of thing Thomas and others are concerned about. By the time
> sites big enough to use pools that big exist (which I actually doubt -
> scalability might just be too hard to manage to be worth it), greylisting
> will be another dead tool in the arms race with spammers.
> So far, all the arguments against the idea have just been assertions and
> strawmen. Unless someone can present a serious argument, can we
> consider this thread done?
I've been using greylisting with postgrey and whitelists for some time
now (more than a year to be precise) and I still do get mail from gmail,
yahoo and msn accounts. And if one is so concerned about them one could
contact their postmasters asking for a list of IPs for whitelisting.
After all we are talking about developers @debian.org email addresses
not abouts lists.debian.org.
<email@example.com> ---- Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System
* Myon wirft noch ein paar 'f' zum Verteilein in den Channel
-!- florolf is now known as fflorolff