On the Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:06:45AM +0200, Tonnerre Lombard blubbered:
Hallo.
This is basically the collision between lazy technicians coming up
with excuses why they're not responsible and stupid users who cannot
do things right. I'm afraid that the purely technical point of view is
not
Salut, Martin,
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:18:31 +0200, Martin Ebnoether wrote:
What do you do, when customers are quitting their contracts
because they think they receive too much spam? Which of the two
groups will it be for you?
You're falsely implying that greylisting is the only way to fight
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
Salut, Marco,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:22:39 +0200, Marco wrote:
fully agreed. thats a bad argument against greylisting. if php
scripts or other webserver stuff, like newsletter servers, etc.. use
their own MTA which is most likely a fancy carp script, as you said,
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
Salut, Marco,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:22:39 +0200, Marco wrote:
fully agreed. thats a bad argument against greylisting. if php scripts
or other webserver stuff, like newsletter servers, etc.. use their own
MTA which is most likely a fancy carp script, as you said,
On Wednesday 15 October 2008, Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
[..]
Not very problematic for the mail server but of course the PHP
script does _not_ attempt redelivery. And your users go to
gmail, because there they get the mail. Not sure that's
desirable for you.
This whole discussion is pointless.
Michael Naef wrote:
On Wednesday 15 October 2008, Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
[..]
Not very problematic for the mail server but of course the PHP
script does _not_ attempt redelivery. And your users go to
gmail, because there they get the mail. Not sure that's
desirable for you.
This whole
Salut, Per,
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:47:48 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Another option is to disable greylisting just for that one
mailserver.
This implies that either you know all servers hosting broken scripts
(NP-complete I think) or your customers will always communicate
problems. Usually they
Salut, Marco,
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:21:59 +0200, Marco Fretz wrote:
Of course I know what you mean. That's the thing every webhoster have
to fight with. Last year I was on the Secure Linux Admin Conference in
Berlin. There was a workshop how to protect shared hosting
webservers...
I am
Salut, Michael,
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:40:18 +0200, Michael Naef wrote:
And that is something a customer with his little online shop
will show open ears to you explaining him why to change his
mailer script.
That's illusionary. Most of the time they don't care about the one or
two customers
actually greylisting works pretty well, and the whitelist
of exceptions is relatively small (not more than 300 entries as
far as I remember). Also if you communicate the value
of it to the customers, they tend to agree that having 90% of spam
filtered before entering the system is worth
Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
Salut, Per,
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:47:48 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Another option is to disable greylisting just for that one
mailserver.
This implies that either you know all servers hosting broken scripts
(NP-complete I think) or your customers will always
Hi Tonnerre
On Friday 17. October 2008, Tonnerre Lombard wrote:
[..]
That's illusionary. Most of the time they don't care about the
one or two customers you at $technically_intelligible_isp
have.
Did you realize that I'm not talking about greylisting but _real_
4xx?
They care about gmail
...and beside that, is really strange that 90% of the professional spam cleaner
(I'm talking about services not appliances) extensively use greylisting.
I'm using greylisting (with some self made scripts to auto learn to withe and
blacklist) since 2 1/2 years and I never missed a single mail.
Salut, Stanislav,
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
actually greylisting works pretty well, and the whitelist
of exceptions is relatively small (not more than 300 entries as
far as I remember). Also if you communicate the value
of it to the customers, they
14 matches
Mail list logo
