On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 17:41, Tonnerre Lombard
tonne...@bsdprojects.net wrote:
There are customers out there that don't care if Exchange is broken,
unfortunately. We're living in a world where «broken» may mean «Find a
workaround» rather than «Have them fix it».
This was an issue with
Salut, Stanislav,
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:30:09 -0700 (PDT), Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
Martin implemented this hack in a FreeBSD kernel module. Of course
this gives more room for performance, but then it binds the solution
to a specific OS and kernel release. I personally feel there's
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch] Im
Auftrag von Daniel Kamm
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2009 10:39
An: swi...@swinog.ch
Betreff: Re: [swinog] Greylisting
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
last AprilMartin Blapp has presented a nice concept
On 19.10.2009 18:27 Gregoire Galland wrote
I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if
yes, do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or
not deliverance of mail?
I'm doing hostname-based selective greylisting (see
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
last AprilMartin Blapp has presented a nice concept at SwiNOG:
instead of greylisting, the SMTP server delays the first OK response to
HELO/EHLO
for 30 seconds. That is usually enough for the vast majority of spambots to
give up.
On a heavy traffic mail server,
Am 19.10.2009 um 18:27 schrieb Gregoire Galland:
Hi all!
I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if
yes,
do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not
deliverance of mail?
we use it for about 35'000 accounts and did not get any complaints.
Am 19.10.2009 18:27, schrieb Gregoire Galland:
I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes,
do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not
deliverance of mail?
If you don't know about the impact you can run greylisting without
actually block
On Monday 19 October 2009 18.27:25 Gregoire Galland wrote:
Hi all!
I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes,
do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not
deliverance of mail?
There are mailservers out there who don't cope with greylisting.
btw
Spam2Co2 :-):
http://img.en25.com/Web/McAfee/CarbonFootprint_12pg_web_REV_NA.pdf
Gregoire Galland wrote:
Hi all!
I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes,
do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not
deliverance of mail?
Thanks
Ben,
Should companies calculate extra heat and ressource usage (CPU, RAM, HDD,
SAN, LAN, WAN) for filtering spam and ask a counter-part when some spammers
get caught to sue them? :)
Would be fun.
- Gregory
2009/10/19 ben mongol go...@monsoleil.ch
btw
Spam2Co2 :-):
Am Montag, den 19.10.2009, 19:14 +0200 schrieb Benoit Panizzon:
There are mailservers out there who don't cope with greylisting.
Sorry, but these mailservers are broken.
http://webattacks.de/exchange-greylist-problem-und-kein-offizieller-patch.html
This problem is known since 2003, I think
Subject: [swinog] Greylisting
Hi all!
I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes,
do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not
deliverance of mail?
Thanks for answer
G.Galland
___
swinog
On 19.10.2009, at 21:30, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
last AprilMartin Blapp has presented a nice concept at SwiNOG:
instead of greylisting, the SMTP server delays the first OK response
to HELO/EHLO
for 30 seconds. That is usually enough for the vast majority of
spambots to give up.
Also
Hi,
That feature is in stock sendmail. It's called the greet_pause ruleset.
FEATURE(`greet_pause', `5000') dnl 5 seconds
causes the MTA to wait 5 seconds before greeting. You could also use
3 to make it be 30 seconds, though usually 5 is plenty.
The problem here is that sendmail
14 matches
Mail list logo
