Re: greylisting
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:28, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<avbidder@fortytwo.ch> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 July 2004 14.06, Russell Coker wrote:
> > [...] Greylisted for 300 seconds... [...]
> > [..] mail server is broken.
>
> Russel, if there are arguments against greylisting, I'd like to hear
After the previous message explaining it I am all for greylisting!
> about them - so far, I've mostly seen success reports. (I like
> greylisting because while the idea is similar to TMDA or such things,
> it usually Just Works(tm) and users won't even notice it in most
> cases.)
It's not similar to TMDA in that it normally should not bother users, as
opposed to TMDA which is specifically designed to annoy people.
> I won't say there are no problems, but so far these have been quite
> marginal.
> - there are some broken mailservers treating a 4xx error like a 5xx
> (this unfortunately includes some big corporate servers)
No problem, I don't mind missing mail from such broken machines.
> - server pools which don't send out the second try from the same IP.
This will still work eventually, it may just take more time.
How many such server pools are there?
> [0] I maintain the postgrey Debian package, as you may have guessed from
> the style of this email :-)
Any chance of back-porting it to woody? I'm not sure I can upgrade my mail
server to unstable at the moment...
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: