On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:35:31 -0800, Bob Amen wrote > And you said "an aggressive greet delay." I tried > that and found too many false positives with legitimate mail servers > that are poorly configured. The only recourse for those false > positives is another means of communication (eg. telephone). So > who's being irresponsible?
I compromise. I use a pretty aggressive greet delay -- but only on machines that are on dynamic IP addresses (as determined by a DNS-based blacklist.) So if the person is on a static IP, *or* they're running an RFC-compliant MTA, their mail gets through. If they're on a dynamic IP and their MTA is crummy, I don't get their mail. Seems fair to me, and so far I haven't had any problems with this technique. It rejects an awful lot of mail from addresses in comcast.net. ;)
