On 18/01/2011 16:46, David F. Skoll wrote:
I'm not saying greylisting is no good... if you have a busy enough mail server with enough users then I think the learning:On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:37:40 -0200 Rejaine Monteiro<reja...@bhz.jamef.com.br> wrote:I also gave up using greylist due to the same problems.I find that very surprising. We've used greylisting for years and have never noticed such problems. (We greylist after the DATA phase, though. Some MTAs do have trouble reacting to 4xx codes in response to RCPT, so maybe that's why we haven't run into trouble.)
(a) won't take long (b) will cover most of your mailThe legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for the greylisting / mail server to try again.
If the receiving profile & mail volume of your MTA fits the purpose (and you can still accept a potential 24 hours delay for some mails) then greylisting is a great weapon against SPAM.
My mail server doesn't fit that profile, so I disabled it - spamassassin is doing a great job for me anyway. Maybe greylisting after DATA would make a difference, but I still don't want to take the risk.
-- Best Regards, Giles Coochey NetSecSpec Ltd NL T-Systems Mobile: +31 681 265 086 NL Mobile: +31 626 508 131 GIB Mobile: +350 5401 6693 Email/MSN/Live Messenger: gi...@coochey.net Skype: gilescoochey
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
