On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 06:03 -0700, Craig White wrote: > See, it's like this... > > Greylisting issues a 450 code... Temporary Failure - why would you > compare it to 'throwing away' ? When it fails and doesn't work again, that's throwing it away. > Temporary Failure codes are part and parcel of the SMTP protocol. It > means try again later. > > You don't have a clue what you are talking about. I most certainly do. You don't seem to have a clue about the difference between theory and practice. When greylisting was first touted, I looked into it. On the face of it, it sounded simple and effective, but under the surface it has flaws, like all other approaches to combating spam have. Most other approaches leave the recipient to deal with handling spam, this one throws back mail in the face of the sender, who mayn't be able to do anything about it, and your spam problems are hardly something that they should have to deal with. You are aware, I hope, that there's a lot of mail services that aren't RFC compliant? You should be aware that there most definitely are reports of greylisting killing mail. You should be aware that many errors never get reported (making reliability reports as useless as other statistics). And that such reports, when they do get made, get ignored or glossed over, as you're doing now. As it stands, unless you vigorously read logs, or have a sender find some way to notify you that they couldn't mail you, you will not know anything about lost mail. Anyone who argues that email shouldn't be a reliable mechanism is skirting the issue. It should be. There's no excuse it not to be. We know it isn't, of course, and greylisting is yet another thing that makes it so. It doesn't work 100% like people expect it to. Yet some seem to think it is, and try and convict you for heresy for daring to say to. And as I said before, go into this with your eyes open. It *may* help, it *will* hinder, and you generally won't know about the losses. I don't recommend destructive technologies. I don't recommend hair-trigger anti-spam techniques. I don't recommend anti-spam systems that make users trawl through their junkmail box to find that message that you sent earlier that they never saw. There's little point in filtering if you then have to double check by hand, anyway. I would recommend systems which have sufficient numbers of rules which set very high levels of spam confidence (i.e. detected spam gets a very high score for passing lots of bad rule checks), and that you only filter spam with a very high confidence score. I would recommend honeypot schemes, where additional bogus addresses receiving mail are marked as 100% confidence spam, and identical messages are killed in transit to any other real addresses. If we could rely on genuine mail being resent, then I would recommend greylisting. But we can't, so I won't. When it comes to anti-spam systems, don't burden the person trying to contact you. -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
