Sure, but that really is beside the point. If you have a server that is publicly available that uses SMTP-AUTH, then for spammers that connect to it directly, are they disco'd, because they didn't use smtp-auth, so greylisting doesn't become an issue?
And if it doesn't, then for your normal user that connects, authenticates, is the greylisting process bypassed? It could be there's something I don't understand in this whole picture, which certainly wouldn't be the first time. On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:59:33PM -0700, John W. Baxter wrote: > Depends on what host name they try to connect to. The two most obvious ones > don't run mail servers (and one of those is blocked for incoming port 25 at > the firewall). The firewall keeps many of the others isolated from port 25 > connections from the world. > > --John > > > On 5/17/05 1:05 PM, "Jaye Mathisen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I can see this, but what about hosts that ignore MX records and > > just connect direct? > > > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:26:37PM -0700, John W. Baxter wrote: > >> On 5/17/05 12:53 PM, "Jaye Mathisen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> I've been reading on greylisting, and thinking about integrating > >>> it. > >>> > >>> However, one question sticks in my head, if you authenticate auser via > >>> some SMTP-AUTH method, then is grey-listing bypassed? > >> Not an issue here, as the Exim instances that customers talk to are > >> separate > >> from the MX that the world talks to. > >> > >>> > >>> I was also thinking about going to really short intervals. Like 5 > >>> minutes. > >> > >> We use a Python daemon we wrote here (which tracks using a MySQL database). > >> Exim gets a simple ACCEPT or DEFER back from the daemon, and acts > >> accordingly. (Mostly at RCTP TO: time, but we defer the <> sender and some > >> others to DATA time for greylisting (to avoid issues with those doing > >> callbacks), and we have whitelisting in a database with fairly fine-grained > >> control (not quite fine enough, unfortunately)). > >> > >> Keeps a lot of messages out of our system (including the new Sober), and > >> the > >> drivel that the machines infected with the new Sober are now spewing out. > >> > >> A process runs every 5 minutes to clean up the database. > >> > >> The separate daemon is much easier than trying to make Exim make the > >> decisions. > >> > >> --John > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users > >> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ > >> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users > ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ > ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/ > > > !DSPAM:428a5623708051190011448! > -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
