* Wietse Venema <postfix-users@postfix.org>: > Stan Hoeppner: > > On 8/23/2011 9:10 AM, Kov?cs J?nos wrote: > > > Thanks Ralf! It's amazing how much spam the pregreet test and a good RBL > > > can catch. > > > Do you have any data on how many spam emails survived postscreen? > > > > Overall, Postscreen is no better nor worse at stopping spam than what > > we've all been doing via SMTPD for many years. It simply decreases the > > number of SMTPD processes required to do so, hence decreasing server > > load and allowing more processing of legitimate mail. > > > > Postscreen is no magic bullet, it's overall "catch rate" being little > > different than setups without Postscreen. > > Agreed. Postscreen's main goal is to reduce mail server load, so > that you can postpone that forklift upgrade. > > Postscreen also stops a few percent of spambots that popular DNSBLs > miss, but at this time, that is only a minor benefit.
I tend to believe (speculation, not measurement) I can get rid of greylisting, which I dislike because it slows down first mail contact, if I use postscreen. Not because postscreen does the same job, but because it seems to keep the same miscreants away. IIRC I've seen a few discussions on this list that seemed to discuss the topic greylisting vs. postscreen, but I didn't have the time to read and follow them. I disabled greylisting since I started using postscreen and the spam ratio did not increase, but the immediacy at which mails from new senders arrive did. Anyone with similiar observations? p@rick -- All technical questions asked privately will be automatically answered on the list and archived for public access unless privacy is explicitely required and justified. saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH): <http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/>
