Chris Lightfoot wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:16:18PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote: > >>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Daniel Tiefnig wrote: >> >> >>>Hmm, how about switching it on in the default config, but not "in exim"? >>>Just being conservative. >> >>That's certainly a possibility. It depends on whether you consider this >>to be a "bug fix" or not ... that's why I asked for any other opinions >>on this one - so far nobody has said anything. > > > Given how often greylisting and defer-all-but-one configs > are (a) advocated and (b) encountered in the wild, I think > changing the default (for new installations at least) as > proposed would be a good idea. >
Disagree. - Whether greylisting itself is common or not *problems caused by encountering* it are NOT that common. - i.e. - WHEN greylisting IS encountered it seldom creates the postulated richochet-until-die situation. - Greylisting will almost certainly decline in 'percentage' use as a reasonably good idea that just happens to not deliver quite enough gain to enough mailadmins for the pain. Greylisting's stats only look good until you take in the *full* picture of what the server could/would have done w/o greylisting's aid. Usually the same job. Ergo, I say don't fix what ain't broke in Exim if greylisting is seen as the primary causal agent for change. Now if *other* demonstrable gain can be had from such a change - *after* subtracting any negatives - then lets put them onto the scales as well. Bill -- ## 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/
