On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Filip Supera wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just heard about this in the Spamtools mailing list :
> >
> > http://www.joreybump.com/code/howto/nolisting.html
> >
> > Any thought ?
>
> Hit&Run spammers are already caught by greylist
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Filip Supera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just heard about this in the Spamtools mailing list :
>
> http://www.joreybump.com/code/howto/nolisting.html
>
> Any thought ?
Hit&Run spammers are already caught by greylisting, that is simpler to
setup. The ones using real MTAs would be
>-Message d'origine-
>De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de Bart Mortelmans
>Envoy=E9 : mardi 20 f=E9vrier 2007 12:17
>=C0 : xmail@xmailserver.org
>Objet : [xmail] Re: Nolisting
>
>
>
>> If the primary MX is accepting connection
> If the primary MX is accepting connections and telling it to try
> again later, don't SMTAs try the primary again before sending to a
> secondary, hence the need for the RST packet in the firewall in the
> nolisting info ? I might be totally wrong about that, but I was
> thinking the secondary w
> Currently, greylisting will only start accepting mail from one sender
> if it retries (for example) 15 or more minutes after the first
> attempt. And MTA's can take much longer before doing a second attempt
> on the same MX. With both MX's pointing to one machine (two IP's), we
> could instruct G
It is indeed a "poor mans greylisting". Real greylisting is however much
more effective. Reasonably large amounts of spam is targeted directly at
the backup mailserver and will come through.
It doesn't seem have the drawback that greylisting has: possible large
delays. But it did make me think
