From: mouss (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 15:10:37 EST
Matt Fretwell wrote:
>
> Well, I know any bit of credibility I may have is about to disappear
> quickly :), but I have to agree totally with Greg on this one.
>
> Personally, I always found greylisting more hassle than just running, as
> I do now, a sane set of restrictions which eliminate on other criteria. If
> the mail does make it into the system, the opportunity is then there to
> reinforce and update the restrictions.
>
nobody have ever said greylisting was a perfect solution. now, one has
to compare it to the _used_ solutions. Greg, as previous messages show,
use dnsbl's, and some of which are quite aggressive. I personally prefer
GL to *BL. At least, GL gives a chance for the message to be accepted,
which is after all the final purpose of a protocol such as smtp. GL (or
whatever you wanna name it) delays mail but allows for legiti_mate mail
to get through. It will of course also allow some ratio of illegitimate
mail. On the other hand, *BLs will just reject mail, be it legit or not.
Of course, if you don't care to lose mail, then that's not a problem.
but most people do care about false positives.
|
|
|