Fighting spam via greylisting
theoldfellow at gmail.com
Sun Apr 8 10:39:34 PDT 2007
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:17:03 -0500
Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/07/07 20:40 CST:
> > I tried a Postfix implementation called Postgrey on my own personal
> > server and the results were very good. (See
> > http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/). Based on those results it was
> > decided to implement this service on Quantum.
> Who decided?
> Were things so bad this had to happen? I am against it. I have not
> been receiving significant spam mail to my LFS account. And we only
> had two recent episodes of spam reaching Trac stuff.
> The reason I'm against it is because of the complications that may
> happen (Jeremy already described, and the solution is to send an
> email to some private address which isn't even listed, you have to
> kind of figure it out and hope you guess the domain name correctly;
> a month from know, is anyone going to have a clue what the hell that
> email addy was?), and Richards statement of "I also may have lost
> some important emails, but I'll never know".
> Oh well, just my two cents. However, as this was decided outside
> the community, by who knows, I don't expect a reply, just wanted
> to chime in.
Justifiable scepticism! But just to ally some fears, I have been
checking my greylisting logs across the whole time I've been running
it, and there are *almost* no Ham messages that have been rejected.
I have had two instances where a big server farm insisted on sending
the retrys from many different IPs. This can confuse some greylisters -
glst/xmail has a method of handling this, but it needs careful setup.
The culprit is gmail/googlemail!! I expect the postgrey system that
LFS is using also has these controls, if not, that is a worry. The logs
will tell, but that's a chore. As with all mailserver management, the
secret is in proper log analysis.
And I only recommended a test.
More information about the lfs-dev