Re: Greylisting (Was Re: [Hampshire] Spam increase?)

On Wed, April 25, 2007 8:08 pm, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Tom Dawes-Gamble wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > First and foremost you have to tweak what you consider to be "the
>> > same source" when looking for attempts from "the same source" --
>> > large networks like gmail, yahoo!?!?!,
>>
>> Yes I use postgrey and it has rules to handle number of domains like
>> that.
>
> Having to manually find and add exceptions is not always very
> scalable and is a requirement that did not previously exist before
> greylisting was introduced. It could well be scalable for you and
> me, but is it for everyone?
>

I have no idea or opinion on that. But then I don't like marmite.


>> I would say that well over 90% of the mail coming in to my mail server
>> is
>> spam. Since I started Grey listing my spam has become managable by
>> hand.
>>
>> Yesteday I greylisted 199 emails 179 didn't retry. So I guess that was
>> spam.
>>
>> In the two months or so I've been using it no one has had problem
>> mailing
>> me and none of the other users have complained of mail not getting
>> though.
>> In fact they have commented how wonderful the new system is.
>
> None of the above invalidates anything I have said.

No, but it does give a real idea of why I think it's worth while.
Of course YMMV but then it always does.

>
>> > There is still no FUSSP:
>>
>> No there isn't but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use what tools are at
>> your disposal.
>
> What it does mean is that whenever people say things like "I'm using
> $TECHNIQUE and I get almost no spam now!" it doesn't mean that they
> are not making some sort of trade-off, which may be significant or
> unworkable in the specific case.
>

No, but then saying "has some quite serious downsides." is no better. IMHO.

When I read that I wondered if I'd missed something in my evaluation of
greylisting.

regards,
Tom.

--
There are 10 sorts of people in the world.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.