On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 19:42 +1030, Tim wrote: > Craig: > >>> There's actually a way around it in a crunch...I've put a 5 minute > >>> window. > > Tim: > >> That's really not a solution. While your server may say, come back in > >> 5, you don't have any control over how, when, or if, the sender will > >> actually retry. > > Patrick: > > Afaik greylisting uses an RFC compliant method. So if the sending > > mailserver does not resend after a while then it is broken and should be > > fixed. FWIW I have used greylisting for more than a year now and in all > > that time I have only once seen a mailserver not resend. > > And for some, once is more than enough. I don't use any spam filters, > as one false positive is more than enough, and I've seen many more than > one. > > I'm not sure that a server really *has* to resend, but it still leaves > you with a problem: You can't reconfigure someone else's server. And, > you mightn't even be able to mail them to discuss it. > > The point I was making, at the start, is to go into it with your eyes > open. Be aware that you may lose mail, important mail, permanently. ---- You're 'not sure that a server really *has* to resend' ? So even though you are unfamiliar with the RFC's that cover the topic, you are entirely comfortable with your administrative decisions. The point I was making at the end is that you are excessively paranoid, admittedly not informed as to the basis of your opinion and stand on principles that eschew proven technologies merely out of principle. I'm sure your clients are buried in client side spam filtering methodology because of your principles. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
