From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 30 08:35:22 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 E848216A400 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:35:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.web-strider.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D7B13C448 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:35:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from TEDSDESK (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l3U8ZKYr071626; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:35:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "John Levine" , Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:36:26 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20070429133118.90624.qmail@simone.iecc.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Subject: RE: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam 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: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:35:23 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:31 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Cc: tedm@toybox.placo.com > Subject: Re: Greylisting -- Was: Anti Spam > > > >> Email is not an instant messaging system, no matter how much you want > >> it to be one. > > > >Cell phone companies won't take pages any other way no matter > how much you > >want them to. > > This might be a good time to learn about outfits like clickatell.com > that provide SMS gateway service. They charge about 10 cents a > message. > Your still not getting the point. The monitoring system speaks e-mail. If it speaks e-mail to the cell carrier and the cell carrier starts greylisting it is screwed. If it speaks e-mail to the SMS gateway service and the gateway service starts greylisting it is still screwed. Instead of "monitoring system" substitute one of many, many, many other embedded devices that use e-mail to send notifications. For example, print servers, UPSes, ethernet-to-ethernet hardware routers, etc. I don't understand why people are focusing on trying to redesign the monitoring system I'm using. Don't you have any imagination at all? The point was that there are legitimate situations where the delays introduced by greylisting are a problem. I used the monitoring system as an example to make it easy to grasp the point. If it would help, I'll stop talking about it and use another example. Sure, it's possible to modify the greylist to whitelist. That implies that the sender knows greylisting is happening, knows how to get the recipient to whitelist, it implies the recipient is even willing to whitelist, etc. Imagine a cell company that puts in greylisting being deluged by 30% of their million-plus userbase requesting to be whitelisted for just the reason I cited. Do you think it would be realistic for the cell company to do this? Sure it's also possible to do something like reconfigure the monitoring system to just call a page-only number that goes to a pager and use touch tones to put in a message, then to wear a pager instead of the cell phone. There are workarounds to the monitoring scenario I cited. That does not prove there are workarounds to every one of these kinds of scenarios. Ted