From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 2 17:14:39 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D0816A41C for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:14:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from hobbiton.shire.net (hobbiton.shire.net [166.70.252.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A655543D53 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:14:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from [67.161.222.227] (helo=[192.168.99.68]) by hobbiton.shire.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.51) id 1DdtHC-000PZ3-E9; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:14:38 -0600 In-Reply-To: <200506020949.54925.kirk@strauser.com> References: <0a6397740f09ea4ac7cce0b1bead3bde@chrononomicon.com> <20050601143415.D69453@wolf.pjkh.com> <200506020949.54925.kirk@strauser.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <08B46D9B-5FC0-4924-B287-2634268DF1A3@shire.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:14:36 -0600 To: Kirk Strauser X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.161.222.227 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: chad@shire.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on hobbiton.shire.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Mon May 30 00:43:02 MDT 2005) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on hobbiton.shire.net) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postgrey question X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:14:40 -0000 On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Thursday 02 June 2005 06:54, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > > >> If people keep accepting broken implementation as the status quo, >> we're >> going to keep getting people who leave broken implementations in >> place. >> > > I have to agree with you on that one. Greylisting is no more non- > standard > than saying "I'm kind of having problems right now; please try again > later". If a machine breaks on greylisting, then any number of other > unintentional problems with also break it. On the positive side, > so many > servers are adopting greylisting that I suspect servers that can't > handle > it will get fixed rather quickly. That is not the issue though. Lots of servers, especially public mail providers, have tried greylisting and rejected it because their user base complains that mail is delayed and they want to know that their mail that their client, support people, etc just sent to them will get there quickly, not 15 minutes, or 30 minutes, or whatever, later. The biggest problems with greylisting are not the broken servers who do not retry -- you can work around them -- it is that the incoming mail is delayed and users don't like it. Now if you have a mail server just for yourself or a special userbase this may not apply to you. And this is why combining greylisting with spamassassin or other antispam software is appealing -- you only grey list those mails you have a good suspicion are actually spam. You do not greylist all mails and so your userbase is happy since their expected email is not delayed. Chad