actually greylisting works pretty well, and the whitelist 
of exceptions is relatively small (not more than 300 entries as 
far as I remember). Also if you communicate the value 
of it to the customers, they tend to agree that having 90% of spam 
filtered before entering the system is worth waiting for half an hour 
for email from a new source. 

It's also a matter of resources: if you don't want or cannot enable 
greylisting, you have to invest more resources into a more sophisticated 
mail filtering software. Even if it's available for free, still developing 
and maintaining your solution might become too expensive.

so, basically as we discussed it already last week in regards to Skype:
use the right tools for the right task :-)







----- Original Message ----
> From: Tonnerre Lombard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: swinog@lists.swinog.ch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 5:27:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [swinog] RBL's (again) (Was:  Anyone from Green here?)
> 
> Salut, Per,
> 
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:47:48 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> > Another option is to disable greylisting just for that one
> > mailserver.  
> 
> This implies that either you know all servers hosting broken scripts
> (NP-complete I think) or your customers will always communicate
> problems. Usually they encounter them and rant about it on their
> Stammtisch and then change provider to someone with one hell of a lot
> of SPAM.
> 
>                 Tonnerre

_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog

Antwort per Email an