Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:49:51 -0500 From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postgrey question Message-ID: <200506020949.54925.kirk@strauser.com> In-Reply-To: <b19b1244337f3a2fe4107ca4a642bafb@chrononomicon.com> References: <0a6397740f09ea4ac7cce0b1bead3bde@chrononomicon.com> <20050601143415.D69453@wolf.pjkh.com> <b19b1244337f3a2fe4107ca4a642bafb@chrononomicon.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] 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. -- Kirk Strauser [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQBCnxyS5sRg+Y0CpvERAi4iAJ93iGTFSixIMvOfvm1s8lGUpfitpACfVMG5 +UhJVNlF9sX+UiLyasF8y74= =7+H1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506020949.54925.kirk>