...and beside that, is really strange that 90% of the professional spam cleaner (I'm talking about services not appliances) extensively use greylisting.
I'm using greylisting (with some self made scripts to auto learn to withe and blacklist) since 2 1/2 years and I never missed a single mail. Someone said that "greylisting is a religion". No, it's not. It's just a pretty effective method of keep the spam out. There are lot of tools, scripts and applications to do that but most of them are quite cpu intensive. 98% of the incoming spam is catched by the greylisting engine with almost zero cpu, only the remaining 2% need to be analyzed. And so fair as I am, I also put a notice in the 450 and 554 error code explaining why it is delayed or rejected. That's not true for notorious spammers which will hangs for hours in my tarpit (and thus saving some other people from being spammed). I know that spammers don't cares about logs but I expect a serious mail-admin does (at least the non M$ admins) and can react on it. As long as the internet community does not efficiently fight spam at the source I will put my efforts on fighting spam at the destination ! My personal opinion is that no consumer hoster or ISP (xDSL/Docsis) should allow their customers to send SMTP directly (beside some exceptions). Just a matter of keep the mess out of the net. We all know that most of the spam comes from bot pc which are on residential access. I guess that if every ISP would apply a mandatory SMTP-relay we would have at least 70% less spam ! And now I stop before we start another "never ending flame-up" discussion :-) Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: > actually greylisting works pretty well, and the whitelist > of exceptions is relatively small (not more than 300 entries as > far as I remember). Also if you communicate the value > of it to the customers, they tend to agree that having 90% of spam > filtered before entering the system is worth waiting for half an hour > for email from a new source. > > It's also a matter of resources: if you don't want or cannot enable > greylisting, you have to invest more resources into a more sophisticated > mail filtering software. Even if it's available for free, still developing > and maintaining your solution might become too expensive. > > so, basically as we discussed it already last week in regards to Skype: > use the right tools for the right task :-) > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Tonnerre Lombard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: swinog@lists.swinog.ch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 5:27:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [swinog] RBL's (again) (Was: Anyone from Green here?) >> >> Salut, Per, >> >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:47:48 +0200, Per Jessen wrote: >>> Another option is to disable greylisting just for that one >>> mailserver. >> This implies that either you know all servers hosting broken scripts >> (NP-complete I think) or your customers will always communicate >> problems. Usually they encounter them and rant about it on their >> Stammtisch and then change provider to someone with one hell of a lot >> of SPAM. >> >> Tonnerre > > _______________________________________________ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailGate, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
