Milter-greylist

Aida, why even bother with greylisting at all then? Every big name, reliable 
mail filtering appliance on the market uses it in some fashion or another. If 
you look at something like Ironport, or Mailhurdle, these all use sender 
verification or greylisting to handle spam issues. If you can not have even 
one false positive, you absolutely can not filter at all. 

When the two choices are a complete failure of the system, or a minute failure 
of the system that can be addressed with acl statements, I feel that it is 
obtuse not to greylist by default. In this case, he is seeing a complete 
failure of the system, so your objection is null and void anyway. It would be 
different if it was actually functioning as expected. 
 

>
> I strongly object you. Your "default to greylist" approach makes too
> many false positives. I'm sure BBC do not want even one false
> positive. It is important that false positives are most likely at big
> ISP's outgoing mxes. In contrast, small hosts, which often lack rDNS
> or have numeric rDNS, are tend to run well-known MTAs in simple
> configurations. They are less likely to suffer false positives.
> Perkin's "greylist end-user-looking hosts only" approach is quite
> reasonable.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>