On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 11:13:56PM -0500, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
> What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
> greylisting is useless 2023?
That feels like a bit of a strawman, insofar as greylisting is *far* from
the only reason why a 4xx could be emitted.
- Matt
On 6/23/2023 9:13 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
> What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
> greylisting is useless 2023?
It isn't.
(it works fairly well for the way I'm using it...)
--
Please don't Cc: me, use only the list for replies, even if the
mailing list
On 6/23/2023 9:13 PM, Al Iverson via mailop wrote:
What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
greylisting is useless 2023?
This prompts wondering whether it's time for the email anti-abuse
community to have a discussion about mechanisms that used to be useful
but are
According to Gellner, Oliver via mailop :
>
>> On 24.06.2023 at 06:56 John Levine via mailop wrote:
>>
>> It appears that Al Iverson via mailop said:
>>> What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
>>> greylisting is useless 2023?
>>
>> Because it's still quite useful if
It appears that Bill Cole via mailop
said:
>On 2023-06-24 at 00:13:56 UTC-0400 (Fri, 23 Jun 2023 23:13:56 -0500)
>Al Iverson via mailop
>is rumored to have said:
>
>> What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
>> greylisting is useless 2023?
>
>+1
>
>It was always a cute
It appears that Bill Cole via mailop said:
>> greylist but never retried: 13573
>> greylist and did retry: 9299
>>
>> whitelisted or previously retried: 6519
>>
>> More than half of the addresses I greylist never retry, and spot
>> checks of the logs show that's overwhelmingly bots.
>
>Do you
Fully agree! You make a good argument. I didn't mean to say that this
issue should be ignored entirely. I would argue that their matchers
could be more specific for such a drastic action as "drop the message
and don't retry". I just don't agree with the whole sentiment that
sendgrid has
Why take the time just to victim blame?
That wasn't my intention. This has turned into a discussion, and I
wanted to add my opinion. I'm not really defending them, I just think
you're getting very angry about something that doesn't seem all that odd
to me personally. The reason I wanted to
On 2023-06-24 at 05:49:30 UTC-0400 (Sat, 24 Jun 2023 11:49:30 +0200)
Alessandro Vesely via mailop
is rumored to have said:
I had a bounce:
Reporting-MTA: dns;PR3PR05MB7547.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;wmail.tana.it
Arrival-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 03:03:07 +
On 2023-06-24 at 00:49:46 UTC-0400 (24 Jun 2023 00:49:46 -0400)
John Levine via mailop
is rumored to have said:
It appears that Al Iverson via mailop said:
What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
greylisting is useless 2023?
Because it's still quite useful if you
On 2023-06-24 at 00:13:56 UTC-0400 (Fri, 23 Jun 2023 23:13:56 -0500)
Al Iverson via mailop
is rumored to have said:
What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
greylisting is useless 2023?
+1
It was always a cute trick that just happened to mostly work but unlike
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 10:18:26AM +, Louis Laureys via mailop wrote:
> I was with you until it was revealed you mention a blacklist in
> your response. Sendgrid assumes that the words in the response
> actually have something to do with the reason it's being
> temporarily rejected
> On 24.06.2023 at 06:56 John Levine via mailop wrote:
>
> It appears that Al Iverson via mailop said:
>> What if we just got to the heart of the matter and admitted that
>> greylisting is useless 2023?
>
> Because it's still quite useful if you do it sensibly. Here's what my
> logs say for
On Sat, 2023-06-24 at 10:18 +, Louis Laureys via mailop wrote:
> Michael, I was with you until it was revealed you mention a blacklist in your
> response. Sendgrid assumes that the words in the response actually have
> something to do with the reason it's being temporarily rejected, which is a
On Sat, 2023-06-24 at 08:42 +, Andy Smith via mailop wrote:
>
> In the specific case at hand it seems that the OP is greylisting
> SendGrid for being on some sort of blocklist, and the specific
> mention of "blacklist" in the 4xx response is hitting a SendGrid
> heuristic that says "don't
Dňa 24. júna 2023 8:42:59 UTC používateľ Andy Smith via mailop
napísal:
>I wouldn't go as far as to characterise my belief that 4xx should
>always be retried to be as firm as fanaticism or religion. Like I
>say, I can see why in some specific cases large senders might not
>want to. The
Michael, I was with you until it was revealed you mention a blacklist in your
response. Sendgrid assumes that the words in the response actually have
something to do with the reason it's being temporarily rejected, which is a fair
assumption to make even if it doesn't follow spec. Then using
I had a bounce:
Reporting-MTA: dns;PR3PR05MB7547.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;wmail.tana.it
Arrival-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 03:03:07 +
Original-Recipient: rfc822;redac...@sharedband.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;redac...@sharedband.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.520
18 matches
Mail list logo
