[Greylist-users] Looking for updated list of bad (but good)senders

[Evan Harris]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Ken Raeburn wrote:

> In the first category, accidentally throwing away entries that are
> valid isn't a big deal; in the second category, it can cause you to
> lose mail.
>
> I think the second kind is more important, but do we want this
> whitelist to include the first kind as well?

I generally try not to list sites in my list unless they will have problems
delivering the mail.  Usually, these are sites that either run poor mailers,
or have several distributed mail hosts.  I have made a couple of exceptions
though if I though they would be useful to a wide enough audience.

I didn't want to list sites that do retry well because that is a more
subjective reason for whitelisting, and anyone who is paying attention to
their logs/db should be able to list these quickly enough on their own if
they are so inclined, but still won't bounce mail if they decide not to.

Evan