Well, if you haven't seen it then it must not be true.
You must work at a small place, otherwise you would know that there are plenty 
of older mailers in the world that aren't RFC 2821 compliant and do not always 
resend.




-----Original Message-----
From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:21 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: GreyListing...

I'm talking about real-life examples.  Your RFC 821 arguement lacks
them.  I understand the scenarios that you are describing, but I've
never seen/heard evidence of it happening*.

   * Aside from distinct vendor failures (e.g. the Exchange hotfix)

So, until I do - and I'm always open to new facts as well as opinions
- it sits on-high in my fud pile awaiting corroboration.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Andy David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe very realistic.
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:16 PM
>  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
>  Subject: Re: GreyListing...
>
>
> 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                ~
>
>  ~ 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                ~

Reply via email to