[Greylist-users] Greylisting vs. 'Light' Greylisting
EdMills at Alumni.Williams.edu
Thu Dec 2 07:34:37 PST 2004
Rather that just give either 3 or 4 octets, it would be more flexible to
specify an address/network and a mask such as
184.108.40.206 and 255.255.255.240
One of the products I use allows you to specify either a single address or a
network/mask pair. (ORFEE from www.vamsoft.com <http://www.vamsoft.com> )
Note that sometimes it might be hard to find a subnet that includes all the
machines you want without too many extras.
From: Paul Schwarz [mailto:Paul.Schwarz at starktruss.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:17 AM
To: 'greylist-users at lists.puremagic.com'
Subject: [Greylist-users] Greylisting vs. 'Light' Greylisting
Hi Guys, I use XWall Spam filter. A very nice product. It whitelists
all outgoing messages (not DSN's or auto-reply's though) so once your
triplet gets in and you reply they will never be checked again.
I talked to the guy who wrote it and suggested that he add the ability to
only check the first 3 octets of the ip address. He just added it.
Example 123.123.123 vs. 220.127.116.11
I can set it either way now. The reason for this is some companies have
multiple MTAs on the same subnet and it could cause a delay if the email
bounces between MTAs a few times before a match is found.
What are your thoughts and is my thinking sound. Seems like light
greylisting will be a little less effective but could help with delays or
Stark Truss Company, Inc.
Senior Network Administrator
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Greylist-users