[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

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 :

>> 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.

> which shows that you didn't read the discussion

Wrong. Disagreeing with you is not the same as not reading your
arguments. Sorry that you were not convincing.

> that was about enabling greylisting on *certain* *specificaly*
> *suspicious* hosts.

I know.

> 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).
>  * ...

This will still include legitimate mail.

> 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.

Bingo: Legitimate mail slowed down. You think the price is worth it,
which is a valid opinion. I happen not to think so.

Usually when mail I send gets greylisted, it is because the software
thinks I am "suspicious".

> so *please* do me a favour, read the thread you are answering to,

I did.

> because you really really answer miles away from the debate.

No, I'm not. I'm expressing an opinion after reading all of the
debate, from the points of it I remember.

> and if you never actually realized, there *IS* such a slowdown on
> debian mail lists, it's called crossassassin, it kills master on a
> regular basis, and is *REALLY* less effective than greylisting.

I don't remember the "master cannot cope under mail load, we need
desperate measures" point being brought up before. I may have missed

Best Regards,


Reply to: