Crap. That sounded bad. Sorry. Anyway, all I am trying to say is that there are mailers out there from different parts of the world that do not always behave the way you think they would or should. And Its not easy to simply tell them to fix their junk.
I'll go back to my bottled water now. -----Original Message----- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:02 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GreyListing... 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 ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
