On 14/01/07, Ian Eiloart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --On 13 January 2007 16:20:17 +0000 Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But for most people, running SA is the most expensive test they do, > > So, the question is are we doing greylisting to save IT resources, or to > stop spam from reaching humans (don't forget, they're a resource too!). If > you don't have the resource to scan all your spam, then you might prefer to > greylist before scanning.
An unscientific gut-feel is that this is often the case. > Alternatively, you might be more concerned about > losing wanted mail as a result of broken or mismatching sender retry > policies - in that case, you want to avoid greylisting mail that > spamassassin says is OK. Of course - one of the unpredictable characteristics of greylisting is that it depends on a certain class of behaviours from the sending system, some of which may be compliant but illogical. What I was trying to work out was the resource load for Magnus's scheme - if it involves SA scanning a message both before greylisting and on retry, then it's pretty heavy. But I presume once a message has passed, the sending MTA is whitelisted...... (modulo hotmail, yahoo, ...) Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ## 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/
