Greylisting .. nice ..

[Scott Silva]

Jim Holland spake the following on 11/3/2006 10:53 PM:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Res wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 11:48:21 +1000 (EST)
>> From: Res <res at ausics.net>
>> Reply-To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
>> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
>> Subject: Re: Greylisting .. nice ..
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Rob Poe wrote:
>>
>>> My thoughts so far are this:  Why didn't I do this sooner.
>> Its going to be pointless soon, problem is, as more and more people do
>> this, it wont be long before the common garden variety spammers smtp
>> engine will also retry on 4xx errors, id give it a year tops (if some of
>> them are not already doing it)
> 
> My objection to it is not that it doesn't work, but that it makes all
> genuine mail servers work twice as hard to deliver mail.  I like having an
> outgoing mail queue as clean as possible, and the greylisters mean
> multiple retry attempts before the mail can be delivered.  The more people
> adopt it the harder it is going to get for the rest of us.  And if the
> spammers adapt to it then we are all going to face a massive increase in
> the number of connection attempts they make on us to defeat greylisting,
> and Internet bandwidth will become even more congested than it is at the
> moment.
> 
> It reminds me of the arguments for keeping a gun in the house - "I just 
> want to make sure that I can protect my family against a dangerous world".  
> But if everyone did just that the world would become an even more 
> dangerous place.
> 
> There are definitely no guns in my house.
I sure don't want to get into the gun/no gun debate! Probably more heated then
the postfix/sendmail/exim debate!

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!