[Greylist-users] Greylisting vs. 'Light' Greylisting

[Ed Mills]

Rather that just give either 3 or 4 octets, it would be more flexible to
specify an address/network and a mask such as
 
123.123.123.112 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.
 
Ed
 
-----Original Message-----
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. 123.123.123.123
 
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
FPs
 
Paul Schwarz
Stark Truss Company, Inc.
Senior Network Administrator
(330) 478-2100
 <http://www.starktruss.com/>  
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/greylist-users/attachments/20041202/15a77e38/attachment.htm