On 05/30/12 06:56, Jan Stary wrote: > On May 30 10:34:31, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:25:01AM +0200, Jan Stary wrote: >> >> > On May 29 22:22:35, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >> > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:53:40PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote: >> > > >> > > > It seems that during the SMTP dialogue, spamd says things like >> > > > "250 Hello spammer, this is gonna hurt you" and similar >> > > > - but it also happens for hosts that are GREY at the time. >> > > > >> > > > Is that right, and is that expected? >> > > > >> > > > Jan >> > > >> > > Yes. Until the host is marked WHITE spamd will handle the connection >> > > attempts from that host. >> > >> > Yes, that's understood. But why does spamd talk like that >> > even on the very first connection attempt? (Not that it hurts >> > the greylisting process.) >> >> Just because the majorty are spammers? > > OK. > >> Why is this relevant? Does the >> sending mta feel offended or so? > > No, it just seemed a bit confusing being greeted as spammer > on the very first contact when I was testing my spamd.
It's good to know who you are talking to when diagnosing delivery problems. Could different messages be generated for first contacts vs. later contacts? Probably. But..why? Added complexity, no benefit. The point of spamd is to block a very high percentage of spam at very low CPU load. Feature creep could break this. Nick.
