From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 7 17:37:22 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C58D16A40A for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:37:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A9213C45A for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:37:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l37HbLHY069198; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:37:21 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id l37HbLZ3069195; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:37:21 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:37:21 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Christopher Martin In-Reply-To: <06d101c7790e$d3b9f130$d315a8c0@SAURON> Message-ID: <20070407112430.F68971@wonkity.com> References: <06d101c7790e$d3b9f130$d315a8c0@SAURON> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:37:21 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Receiver (To/CC envelope fields) addresses verification against LDAP/Active Directory in sendmail 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: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:37:22 -0000 On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Christopher Martin wrote: > I guess I could white-list out all of sales' and senior management's > addresses. The scenario where sales and senior management get all their spam with no delay and everyone else gets the benefit of greylisting sounds pretty much ideal. Incidentally, my experiments with varying the greylisting timeout period have shown no appreciable difference. It's the initial refusal that does the most good; spam zombies generally can't afford the time to retry. I have seen a few where there's a quick attempt to resend the same spam from up to about five different spam zombies, but greylisting handles that very effectively. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA