Michael Holzt wrote:
I tried greylisting for two months on my primary mail server. I enjoyed the (slight) reduction in spam but I also couldn't live with important emails being deferred and not tried again. This is common with financial institutions, for exactly the same reasons they stamp things like "DO NOT FORWARD" on envelopes.
Sorry, but i think the last sentence is complete nonsense. A mail sender who does not retry on a temporary deferral is broken, and there is NO excuse for doing that. A temporary deferral is a completely different thing than a mail forwarding. A more appropiate analogy might be a postal guy finding your mailbox physically damaged (e.g. by vandals). In no way he will return your mail to the sender, but take it back to the post office and try it on another day.
A lot of virus-proliferation spam makes a claim to authority by imitating a financial institution. Real financial institutions would appreciate the help greylisting gives there, and there is the additional marketing consideration that there would be less "financial institution" mail competing for clicks if the fake was weeded out.
No sympathy for non-compliant mta's on this issue. I could almost wonder which self-alleged financial institutions you represent as bonking on greylisting. Which, may I ask?
-Bob
