Anyone using

Res res at
Thu Sep 7 14:45:49 IST 2006

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Glenn Steen wrote:

>> Ok I know it was late when i posted that, and its early now and im just
>> sitting down to my first coffee of the day, but... does this still not
>> mean SA is still missing 60% or so of spam, greylistd or not, if its spam
>> SA would/should have picked it up regardless, just being greylisted meant
>> it had to wait a bit of time before marking it as spam rather than
>> instantly.
> Why do you assume the spammers use an MTA that can handle a temp fail?
> The point of greylisting isn't "wait a bit", it is "retry if you're real":-).
> So Eds figures add up just fine.

I never assumed that, infact i know they dont, 90% use internal smtp 
code that rarely uses an isp mail server, read my last post a few mins 
ago,  it clarifies where im coming from :)

Grey listing is not an option on very large carriers networks IMHO.
(and the opinion of many other aussie and yank admins i know who also run 
large customer bases) for some reason it does seem to be an extreme 
facination here though for the weitse patsies who try thrash down our 
throats how much we should all use postfix, they on one list were told to 
STFU or be banned as now deemed as UBE spammers ROFLMFAO

We are happy with RBL'd, bad helos  RFC1912 compliance, greet pause on 
sendmail boxes,  and our internal "F-U" access lists ;)


"Just a world that we all must share, it's not enough just to stand and
stare, is it only a dream that there'll be no more turning away" - Floyd

More information about the MailScanner mailing list