Ok. Then maybe it will be more useful than I was originally thinking it would be. I still think it is going to cause customers to complain about email delays, though.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Kielkopf Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] Re: Graylisting ... Actually, "double tap"ing won't work unless they add a substantial delay in sending the next mail. Any server that tries again too soon is badly configured, or a spammer. It then gives you times to let that spammers IP get propagated on some of the black lists. Shiloh Jennings wrote: >If this became widespread, then a lot of ISPs would need to set their = >SMTP >servers to retry a lot more often. Otherwise, customers would complain >about the email delays. Also, if it were widespread, spammers would = >simply >double tap each email. Sending the exact same email twice instead of = >once >would get the spam through the Greylist filter. And by requiring such, = >we >would only be encouraging more bandwidth wasting. Greylisting is, at = >best, >only a very short term solution. As soon as it became popular, it would = >no >longer be useful. > >What I would like to have more than anything right now is SMTP-SASL, so = >I >could fully implement SPF. Right now, I have no way of opening another = >SMTP >port for only SMTP AUTH connections. I want to open 587 for SMTP but = >only >SMTP AUTH. That would do me world more good than Greylisting. > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
