On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 15:20, Jonas Eckerman wrote: > > rejects should start with > > a short life but live increasingly longer as the use count > > increases. > > That could work. But that would also mean the database has to be updated for for > every incoming mail. With a static (short) lifetime for rejects the databse would > only have to be updated when a check has been done for an address.
If your server can't handle a database update, it's going to have a hard time delivering or bouncing the message... The thing I'm seeing recently looks like a distributed dictionary attack probably from virus-infected PCs where the To: cycles through random looking letter combinations but the From: has a much smaller set of entries. There might be several thousand a day from the same address which is probably already being clobbered by bounces (maybe that is the point of the virus) and these repeat as a new machine finds the smtp receiver. I thought it would be nice to avoid any more connections to the spoofed From: hosts than necessary. However, maybe the greylist check should come first which would probably avoid the issue in the first place. --- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
