Thanks, David. The light just came on. (duh) :) David Sánchez Martín wrote: > >> Given that your primary objective seems to be to eliminate any delays >> from existing emailers, I suppose this would work for you. >> Spammers who >> hit sporadically will eventually expire. I just intend to >> point out that >> persistent spammers who send more often than graylist-max-secs will >> continue to pass. Again, this might be livable. I've no idea how >> persistent spam generally is. > > That's correct, and it's true for the whole graylisting process. > > There's no difference, to this extend, of enabling it in full at the very > beginning or not. > > Persistent spammers will hit, in any case, but that wasn't what I was trying > to solve (as you said, this is something I should consider if it's > acceptable > or not, but this is another matter, graylisting is what it is, you can take > it or leave it as is). > > Best regards :-) > > --- > David Sanchez Martin > Administrador de Sistemas > [email protected] > GPG Key ID: 0x37E7AC1F > > E2000 Nuevas Tecnologías > Tel : +34 902 830500 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > spamdyke-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
-- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
