On 19/01/11 15:02, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
Lee Dilkiel...@dilkie.com wrote:
The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
greylisting didn't adversely affect the amount of
Hi, Steve,
http://www.fsl.com/index.php/resources/whitepapers/99
Interesting. I think you should credit me for this:
Once that has been proven then that â is exempted from further
greylisting for 40 days since it was last seen.
Our CanIt system has been doing that since at least 2005, and
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:47:12 +
Steve Freegard st...@stevefreegard.com wrote:
See http://www.fsl.com/index.php/resources/whitepapers/99
Once that has been proven then that 'hostid' is exempted from further
greylisting for 40 days since it was last seen.
:) Our CanIt system has been doing
Hi David,
On 08/02/11 15:57, David F. Skoll wrote:
Hi, Steve,
http://www.fsl.com/index.php/resources/whitepapers/99
Interesting. I think you should credit me for this:
Once that has been proven then that â is exempted from further
greylisting for 40 days since it was last seen.
Our CanIt
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:04:37 +
Steve Freegard st...@stevefreegard.com wrote:
Sure - credit where it is due; I've you to the 'Thanks' section.
Thanks. And also, my apologies for posting to the list... that was supposed
to be a private message. :(
/me mutters something about email amateurs
On 1/19/11 2:10 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:37:07 +0100
Rolf E. Sonneveldr.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
I agree with you, looking at my own personal situation. However, many
mail admins (and maybe you too) are responsible for the e-mail
handling of many
I recently gave up on greylisting after using it for years as well.
Two reasons really, one was the complaints from users (and I found that
they often asked folks to send mail to me twice to try and get mail to
work better and that was just embarrassing).
The second was that I've found that the
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
Lee Dilkie l...@dilkie.com wrote:
The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
greylisting didn't adversely affect the amount of spam that got
through.
That's possibly
On 1/19/2011 10:02 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
Lee Dilkie l...@dilkie.com wrote:
The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
greylisting didn't adversely affect the
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I liked GL but there are a number of big ISPs that
have quite long retry timeouts (for some reason, sympatico comes to
mind) and it got to be too annoying.
...and when you encounter a big ISP that does this, do you notify their
On 1/19/11 10:17 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I liked GL but there are a number of big ISPs that
have quite long retry timeouts (for some reason, sympatico comes to
mind) and it got to be too annoying.
...and when
The legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from
hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which
time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for the greylisting / mail
server to try again.
I run greylisting on an email server with several thousand email
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:14:29AM -0600, Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 1/19/11 10:17 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I liked GL but there are a number of big ISPs that
have quite long retry timeouts (for some reason,
On 1/19/2011 9:25 AM, Matt wrote:
The legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from
hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which
time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for the greylisting / mail
server to try again.
I run greylisting on an email server
The legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from
hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which
time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for the greylisting / mail
server to try again.
I run greylisting on an email server with several thousand email
On 1/19/2011 8:06 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote:
On 1/19/2011 10:02 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
Lee Dilkiel...@dilkie.com wrote:
The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 1/19/11 10:17 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I liked GL but there are a number of big ISPs that
have quite long retry timeouts (for some reason, sympatico comes to
mind) and
On 1/19/11 2:35 PM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Daniel McDonald wrote:
On 1/19/11 10:17 AM, John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Lee Dilkie wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I liked GL but there are a number of big ISPs that
have quite
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:55:42 +0100
Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
The legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from
hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which
time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for the greylisting / mail
server to try
On 1/18/11 4:58 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:55:42 +0100
Giles Coocheygi...@coochey.net wrote:
The legitimate mail that passes through my mail server comes from
hosts / networks I might not hear from again for months, by which
time I have to potentially wait 24 hours for
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:33 +0100
Rolf E. Sonneveld r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
RFC821/RFC2821/RFC5321 points out that a client has to wait a minimum
of 30 minutes before a retry attempt should be made,
That's fine. I don't care if an email from someone I've never heard
from before is
Hi All
To answer David's post, extract from our scanning system for today.
*Jan 18 01:53:19 sendmail[8404]: p0I1rIDg008404:
from=debenhams5-boun...@shopdebenhams.com, size=43048, class=0,
nrcpts=1, msgid=debenh...@shopdebenhams.com, proto=ESMTP,
daemon=MTA,
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:20 +
Gary Forrest ga...@netnorth.co.uk wrote:
Interesting 2 of our 3 scanning heads use a grey list system that
uses /32 addresses as part of the process, these two servers have
100's of emails delayed for well over a day. Our 3rd scanning head
uses a grey list
On 1/18/11 11:02 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:33 +0100
Rolf E. Sonneveldr.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
RFC821/RFC2821/RFC5321 points out that a client has to wait a minimum
of 30 minutes before a retry attempt should be made,
That's fine. I don't care if an email
On 01/18/2011 12:31 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:18:20 +
Gary Forrestga...@netnorth.co.uk wrote:
Interesting 2 of our 3 scanning heads use a grey list system that
uses /32 addresses as part of the process, these two servers have
100's of emails delayed for well over a
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:37:07 +0100
Rolf E. Sonneveld r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl wrote:
I agree with you, looking at my own personal situation. However, many
mail admins (and maybe you too) are responsible for the e-mail
handling of many (tens/hundreds/thousands) of users. Most users have
26 matches
Mail list logo
