@lbutlr:
> On 07 Aug 2018, at 04:49, Luc Pardon <l...@skopos.be> wrote:
> > but in any case it serves no useful purpose (unlike greylisting, SAV, =
> etc.
>
> Are people still finding grey listing to be useful? I found it caused =
> far more problems than it solved and the endless game of scanning logs =
> for sites like Amazon that resend from different machines or many banks =
> that will never resend was time consuming and tedious.
Not since I started using postscreen.
With postscreen 'after 220' checks turned off, a 'good' client gets
to talk to the Postfix SMTP server without having to reconnect.
This is what I have been doing since 2011 or so.
With postscreen 'after 220' checks turned on, a 'good' client has
to reconnect, which brings all the issues of greylisting. I found
that this blocked practically nothing that wasn't already blocked
otherwise.
Greylisting (whether in postscreen or otherwise) may still be an
option for sites that don't want to use DNSBLs.
Wietse
