Le mar 18 juillet 2006 10:00, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 22:29, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > > > > > > the discussion (...) was about enabling greylisting on *certain* > > *specificaly* *suspicious* hosts. a suspicious > > host is: > > * either listed on some RBL's (rbl listing "dynamic" blocks are a > > good start usually) > > * either having no reverse DNS set > > * either having curious EHLO lines (that one may catch too much > > good mail sadly, so it's to handle with care). > > * ... > > > > I apply greylisting on the two first criteriums on a quite used > > mail server (around 300.k mails per week, which is not very big, > > but should be representative enough). > > > > there is less than 50 mails a week over those that *may* be > > legitimate mails that are actually slowed down. > > On second thought, I'm very interested in how you measured this false > positive rate. Do all the recipients of the 300k mails per week check > for every mail if it was greylisted (that means you would put a > header or something like that saying "this mail was greylisted"?), > and they _always_ check on _every_ legitimate mail and _always_ > report false positives to you? Probably not. So, are these 50 mails a > week all the mail that undergoes greylisting but *still* goes through > (i.e. gets retried, roughly)? Something else? it's the number of mails that are beeing resubmited per week with my system. so in fact, in them, there is 49 spams. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpuXCi83ArVl.pgp
Description: PGP signature