Re: Any benefit to changing the TEMPFAIL message?

> The best you can do is if you know these specific servers are GOOD 
> people, but unfortunately, have broken SMTP software, and you don't have 
> an avenue of contact to get them to fix it or its legacy software and 
> the author no where to be found, then your only choice is to white list 
> them and not greylist them.

dnswl.org maintains a decent whitelist thats excellent for greylisting usage.
Saves me from a lot of (unnecessary) delays in delivery and also makes coping with big email farms (ie: google's mta pools) very easy.

On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 12:26 -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> Albert E. Whale wrote:
> > I have been using (and supporting) the GreyListing software (our own 
> > version of course), and was wondering if anyone had found any value with 
> > changing the standard TEMPFAIL message?
> > 
> > The only reason I ask this is because some users, and also some Servers 
> > will send an email but never retry.
> 
> Then they are not following the RFC x821 requirements.
> 
> > While I understand that the users which send a message directly to us 
> > will see the TEMPFAIL message, they do not necessary understand that it 
> > means to retry it again shortly.
> 
> The TEXT part is meaningless.  It is the code 45x that triggers a 
> temporary negative response.  451 is an "attempt" to major clients be 
> more greylist aware, but it is the 45x response that makes it work in 
> general.  Nothing after that number should be relied on to control 
> client behavior.
> 
> > Additionally, the servers that do not resend (wow is this inane), I just 
> > do not know how to kick those servers hard enough.
> 
> You can't.  And you shouldn't worry about it.  Its not your problem. And 
> in my view, the odds are fairly high these type of servers are more 
> 'spammer-type' than not.
> 
> Thats the whole point behind greylisting.  The BAD will not follow the 
> basic rules, the GOOD will.
> 
> > Any Suggestions?
> 
> The best you can do is if you know these specific servers are GOOD 
> people, but unfortunately, have broken SMTP software, and you don't have 
> an avenue of contact to get them to fix it or its legacy software and 
> the author no where to be found, then your only choice is to white list 
> them and not greylist them.
>