[vox-tech] postgrey is dangerous?
lozeran at clinicalinformatics.com
Wed Jul 2 19:35:13 PDT 2008
Thanks Bill. More good information that I can use.
To those who prefer spam over SPAM, I have no personal preference, I don't particularly enjoy either ;-)
On 7/2/2008 at 12:30 AM Bill Broadley sent:
>Sorry to comment late, but I figured I'd throw my input in.
>First of all the idea behind grey listing is quite sound, it's an official
>part of the SMTP standard and anyone who can't deal with it is running a
>broken mail server that will fail in many real world scenarios that do not
>involve greylisting. A please try again later can come up for numerous
>reasons, system load, maintenance windows, system failure, etc.
>I've found it to be rather effective, when combined with HELO filtering
>quite effective at cutting down the amount of SPAM and makes it much
>run a mailserver that saves the most cpu intensive SPAM/Virus scanning for
>much reduced traffic that makes it through. This graph is representative
>to what I saw:
>The compatibility from what I can see is pretty good, I've seen zero
>with the bigger systems like yahoo, gmail and the like. Sure some travel
>agent running some wonky mailserver that he bought as a turnkey package
>some clueless company 5 years ago might have this incompatibility, but 10%
>of his email vanishes into the either because it doesn't handle SMTP
>in many ways... but typically such folks adapt and will follow up from a
>account or something. Real estate agents seem to have similar problems.
>Additional documentation for postfix is at:
>The above also includes a sample greylisting daemon if you don't want to
>Other implementations at:
More information about the vox-tech