Re: OT: offending sig + headers
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 02:22:28PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > The greylisting implementation that I use works very well for me.
> [...]
> > There is no mail that goes missing because of false positives.
>
> That you know about. But you didn't receive it, so, how would you
> know? The only way is if someone thought to ask you about it... not
> all mail is such that someone would follow up.
If it doesn't get delivered then it bounces, and the sender is therefore
aware. This is very different from being accepted and then silently
eaten by a spam filter, which is just awful.
You can still dislike greylisting, but mail doesn't end up in /dev/null.
> I receive mass mailings that I *want*; I don't believe one can
> rely on the servers that send such mail to be configured properly.
> Grey-listing could potentially block that mail.
True enough. If you want mail from poorly configured servers and don't
want to whitelist manually, then greylisting is a bad choice.
--
Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG
dwchandler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation