2008/9/7 Eric Shubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Davide D'AMICO wrote: >> 2008/9/7 Eric Shubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I think I can field this one. ;) >>> >>> Davide D'AMICO wrote: >>>> 1) Isn't more useful to graylist senders using their ip address rather >>>> than only its >>>> email address, like this: >>>> /var/db/spamdyke/graylist/domain/rcpt/sender/ip_sender ? >>> Some large (think yahoo, gmail) mailers use server pools. Retries might be >>> sent from a different server, causing a message to be graylisted many times. >>> >>> Personally, I think it'd be ok to use IPs for a type of whitelist after the >>> IP has passed graylisting. After all, once an IP has passed for one >>> domain/sender, wouldn't it pass for all other domain/senders too? However, >>> this adds another level of complexity (a pre- and a passed- gray list, >>> sometimes referred to as a dual key). If this proved to be a good method, a >>> global whitelist service based on the post-key (simply IP address), sort of >>> like RBLSs but RWLs, could be implemented. I don't know if anyone's pursued >>> such a thing or not. Seems feasible to me though. >> You are right, but server pools are well known (gmail, yahoo, msn and others) >> and could be easily discovered and included in a whitelist. > > Yes, but they change, so you'd need some sort of maintenance procedure to > keep them up to date. It's a slow moving target, but far from being fixed. > Adding a manual maintenance burden is bad. If it were automated though, > that'd be ok. > Graylist uses a timeout (min/max) to reset/delete graylist files, so there is no need to use manual maintenance.
Davide _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
