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.
> 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,
> 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