On 19/01/11 15:02, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
Lee Dilkie<l...@dilkie.com> wrote:
The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
greylisting didn't adversely affect the amount of spam that got
through.
That's possibly true, but look at this.
A greylisted message: mimedefang[17175]: p0I4xvRE017628: Filter time is 85ms
A scanned message: mimedefang[17175]: p0I50ACP017683: Filter time is 906ms
On a busy system, this can make a huge difference. SpamAssassin scanning
is by no means cheap.
I know this thread is a bit old now; but at the time this was being
discussed I was running a test as I decided to revisit greylisting and
see if it was worth keeping in our products.
I found the results very interesting (to me at least), so I decided to
write a whitepaper and share my results:
See http://www.fsl.com/index.php/resources/whitepapers/99
Kind regards,
Steve.
