<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: OT: offending sig + headers



On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:05:40PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> FYI, greylisting doesn't work like that. There's no need (mostly) to
> manually intervene. 

Challenge-response anti-spam methodologies are also often referred to
as greylisting, e.g. in this document:

  http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html

I also thought this was what you meant; challenge-response
grey-listing predates the milter method of grey-listing, if I'm not
mistaken.  However my arguments hold true here, as well.  Milter
grey-listing is an incomplete solution, and once again could
potentially interfere with mass-distribution mailings that I actually
*want*, or possibly even mail from people I know who maintain their
own mail server, but aren't so good at configuring it.  You usually
need to use it in conjunction with something like spamassassin for
best results.  All the same problems I mentioned before apply.

Your kind of grey-listing is what I would use if I were setting up
spam filtering on a corporate mail server today, in conjunction with
spamassassin or similar; but it's still not as good as what I do.  But
what I do doesn't scale well to multiple users, and requires that I
run my own server.  Which, works for me, but doesn't particularly work
in a corporate environment.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

Attachment: pgpV8maIwTiqu.pgp
Description: PGP signature