On Fri, November 3, 2006 11:53, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> Due to the dynamic nature of this test, I guess that at least in the postfix
> case it should need to be somehow embedded into the greylisting server: it
> seems postfix doesn't allow to specify more than one policy server in the
> chec
> Federico Giannici wrote:
> > François Rousseau wrote:
> >> Greylisting is not always good...
> >>
> >> The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the email have
> >> to be delever fast.
> >
> > I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only based on
> > them.
> >
>
> François Rousseau wrote:
> > Greylisting is not always good...
> >
> > The greylisting insert delay in delevery and sometimes the
> email have to
> > be delever fast.
>
> I don't trust enough DNSBLs to completely block an email only
> based on them.
>
> What about combining BlackListing an
> Da: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What I do is sort of partial greylisting. If a connection is suspicious
> I give them a temp error on my lowest MX but accept them on higher MX
> records. So that way most MTA will try a higher MX right away and it
> doesn't add much of a delay.
Wel
Greylisting is not always good... The greylisting insert delay in
delevery and sometimes the email have to be delever fast. For
example: on some public wireless network, you have to register to have access
to the internet. You can access internet without authentification for 15
