sounds very fuddish to me On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Andy David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh and let's not forget the greylisting bug in Exchange/Windows 2003 SP2 ( > now mitigated by a hotfix and reg tweak). Without the fix, "legitimate" > Exchange mailers aren't resending the messages once they get the 4xx response > code from the receiver and the message disappears until the SMTP service is > restarted. > > So, regardless whether it's a bug, a mailer that simply doesn't retry, or > some other reason, legitimate mail can be "lost" or dropped when you decide > to greylist. To say otherwise, is, well, a misnomer. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:57 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: GreyListing... > > > "Greylisting only delays legitimate mail. It will stay in queue and be > sent again. The notion that Greylisting loses legitimate email is a > misnomer." > > > Now that's funny. When you have 20 million messages coming to your door > everyday ( And Jim over there at BB&T has even more than that) from all over > the world, many from systems in countries that are still using older mail > systems following RFC 821, I bet you wouldn't say that. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:45 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Re: GreyListing... > > Greylisting only delays legitimate mail. It will stay in queue and be > sent again. The notion that Greylisting loses legitimate email is a > misnomer. > > Legitimate = from a MTA > > If expecting to receive email from a non-legitimate, non-queuing > source, such as some sort of custom notification service with no > sending intelligence, etc; it pays to be mindful of what is expected > to be received, and whitelist matching criteria for those messages so > they are not subject to delaying. > > The benefits of using Greylisting majorly outweigh the legwork to > whitelist. Depending on a server's existing load, Greylisting offsets > processing and the bandwidth used for both the transmission of spam as > well as the various DNS checks performed afterward. > > I've been Greylisting for 2 years now. The only notable issue came at > the beginning when certain peoples expectation of instantaneous e-mail > was delayed by 10 minutes that first time before the sender's server > became automatically whitelisted. > > HTH > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Andy David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How much legitimate mail are you dropping? > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:53 PM > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: GreyListing... > > > > Well, after my email I sent out about the two domains and the one > > particular domain being hit hard, the JEP(s) along with Trend and IMF I > > am seeing about a 87% of blocked spam email. Hopefully the end users > > will be a little happy as I am right now. > > > > Again thank you all for the responses. > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:10 AM > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: GreyListing... > > > > Thanks for the pointer to JEP(S)! I've installed it on my church's > > system and so far it's having a big impact on the spam (>84% blocked), > > so much so that IMF is only seeing about 5% of what it used to see even > > with my aggressive 6 (archive) and 4 (junk mail) settings. > > > > I'm not thoroughly convinced that greylisting is ideal, but it does work > > and JEP(S) makes it easy and free to implement. > > > > > > Roger Wright > > Network Administrator > > Evatone, Inc. > > 727.572.7076 x388 > > ____ > > > > When the TV repairman got married the reception was excellent. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:30 AM > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: GreyListing... > > > > IMF doesnt Greylist, but here is something that wou might find easier to > > use than ASSP: > > > > http://www.petri.co.il/greylisting_in_exchange_2003.htm > > > > > > On Feb 19, 2008 11:03 AM, Chyka, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No....is that a necessity to use greylisting? > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:47 AM > > > > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > > Subject: RE: GreyListing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you enable IMF? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Stefan Jafs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Chyka, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:35 > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > > Subject: GreyListing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to get some input on the service that is recommended for > > > greylisting with Exchange 2003. my friend has a small office with 40 > > > mailboxes and they use Symantec Brightmail for Spam filtering. When > > > running the report for them, I am seeing 98% SPAM hitting the exchange > > > > > box. I want to reduce this for them and take some stress off of the > > > server. Looking for a free or very cheap greylist service and how > > easy it is to set up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely > > > > > for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you > > > should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or > > > opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not > > > represent those of Amico Corporation . Warning: Although precautions > > > have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the > > > > > company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise > > from the use of this email or attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ME2 > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > > > -- > ME2 > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >
-- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
