17 Dec
2006
17 Dec
'06
3:51 p.m.
der Mouse wrote:
Yes - i find it hard to believe that an smtp mta would not 'store and
forward'. At the very least it it would be non-compliant with RFC's and
worse it would be quickly deamed "very broken".
people have multiple mx's for a reason - servers go down.
But moreover,
believe it or not I've found a fair number of servers
that take the temporary rejection as a permanent one and never try
again. Customers won't accept this.
Customers have no choice. Greylisting is not the only thing that can
produce a temporary rejection...unless you're running a very
exceptional MTA! > Yes, I know it's easy to say in an ivory tower
mentality "well,
> that's their fault", but in a business setting we don't have the
> luxury of the ivory tower.
I understand, and agree, but at some point (about now) the volume of spam
gets to be 100x the volume email and something has to be done.
I just turned on greylisting (two different versions, one for each mx)
on a domain and the volume of spam went down 90%. I am willing to pay a
1 hour tax for that relief. The time I was wasting was costing me
money. Plus, I whitelist domains I do business with.
(at some point it becomes an economic issue where the lost time and
messages ends up costing you money. not very ivory tower to me.)
-brad