Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Marc Balmer
Am 19.10.2009 um 18:27 schrieb Gregoire Galland: Hi all! I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes, do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not deliverance of mail? we use it for about 35'000 accounts and did not get any complaints.

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Andre Keller
Am 19.10.2009 18:27, schrieb Gregoire Galland: I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes, do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not deliverance of mail? If you don't know about the impact you can run greylisting without actually block

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Benoit Panizzon
On Monday 19 October 2009 18.27:25 Gregoire Galland wrote: Hi all! I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes, do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not deliverance of mail? There are mailservers out there who don't cope with greylisting.

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden ben mongol
btw Spam2Co2 :-): http://img.en25.com/Web/McAfee/CarbonFootprint_12pg_web_REV_NA.pdf Gregoire Galland wrote: Hi all! I was wondering who is using Greylisting in their compangny, and if yes, do they receive any complaints from customers about latency or not deliverance of mail? Thanks

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Gregory Agerba
Ben, Should companies calculate extra heat and ressource usage (CPU, RAM, HDD, SAN, LAN, WAN) for filtering spam and ask a counter-part when some spammers get caught to sue them? :) Would be fun. - Gregory 2009/10/19 ben mongol go...@monsoleil.ch btw Spam2Co2 :-):

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Andre Timmermann
Am Montag, den 19.10.2009, 19:14 +0200 schrieb Benoit Panizzon: There are mailservers out there who don't cope with greylisting. Sorry, but these mailservers are broken. http://webattacks.de/exchange-greylist-problem-und-kein-offizieller-patch.html This problem is known since 2003, I think

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Stanislav Sinyagin
last AprilMartin Blapp has presented a nice concept at SwiNOG: instead of greylisting, the SMTP server delays the first OK response to HELO/EHLO for 30 seconds. That is usually enough for the vast majority of spambots to give up. Also if the client tries to send something before receiving the

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Chris Meidinger
On 19.10.2009, at 21:30, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: last AprilMartin Blapp has presented a nice concept at SwiNOG: instead of greylisting, the SMTP server delays the first OK response to HELO/EHLO for 30 seconds. That is usually enough for the vast majority of spambots to give up. Also

Re: [swinog] Greylisting

2009-10-19 Diskussionsfäden Martin Blapp
Hi, That feature is in stock sendmail. It's called the greet_pause ruleset. FEATURE(`greet_pause', `5000') dnl 5 seconds causes the MTA to wait 5 seconds before greeting. You could also use 3 to make it be 30 seconds, though usually 5 is plenty. The problem here is that sendmail