Derek J. Balling wrote: > On May 15, 2009, at 1:40 AM, Dave Close wrote: > >> I've read the pros and cons. It works for me. I measure several >> thousand >> rejected messages on this basis every hour. >> > > "rejected messages" is a crummy/useless metric. I can improve your > metric: > > From:* REJECT > > et voila, your rejected messages count goes up. :-) > > The important metric is "how many USELESS messages" or "how many SPAM > messages" are rejected. And I would guess that you're rejecting some > valid mail that way. Especially if someone who is sending you mail is > doing greylisting....
Simple example: I use milter-greylist and I couldn't post to the Bacula users list because of the connection checking stuff that they do. I had to specifically white-list the Bacula users list in order to be able to post there. That was dealt with because I personally wanted to send messages to that list. It's a royal pain in the butt dealing with all the emails that all of my users try to send, and undoubtedly lots of it falls through the cracks. There are a lot of non-compliant mail servers out there -- big ones as well as small ones -- that fail for one reason or another. Some have their queue runners botched up so that, when greylisted, they don't come around to resend for many hours. Figuring out why a particular message didn't get to the intended recipient can be a real pain, especially when users don't provide full headers or any other specific details. -- --------------- Chris Hoogendyk - O__ ---- Systems Administrator c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments (*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center ~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst <[email protected]> --------------- Erdös 4 _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
