Re: greylisting on debian.org?
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:47:49AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 17 juillet 2006 à 22:29 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit :
>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:36:31AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
>>> Quoting Wolfgang Lonien (email@example.com):
>>>> Do we use greylisting on the @debian.org domain and especially on
>>> So, up to now, we've found Thomas Bushnell who seems really hardly
>>> voting against greylisting on Debian hosts, (...).
>>> So far and unless I forget someone, I haven't seen much other
>>> people being strongly opposed to greylisting on Debian hosts,
>> Here is one: I am strongly opposed to greylisting (on mail sent to
>> me or that I send), for the reason that it delays legitimate mail.
> I have refused greylisting for a long time for that exact reason.
> However the setup Pierre Habouzit describes does not delay most of
> legitimate mail.
That is the crux of the disagreement. You guys think that as long as
"most" of the legitimate mail is not delayed, the price is worth it. I
don't think so.
> Frankly, the remaining delays are sporadic and one can live with
Knowing that most legitimate mail doesn't get delayed doesn't make me
feel better when mail I sit waiting for gets delayed. Obviously, for
most mail I don't care as I don't sit waiting for it, I batch-treat it
a fez times per day or per week. So a half-hour delay on it, I don't
even see it. For *most* mail.
> I'm applying greylisting if one of these conditions is met:
> * the incoming IP is listed in a DUL;
Bingo! You hit a hot button of mine.
> * Exim sender/callout fails with a fatal error.
"Fatal" means not temporary?