[nycbug-talk] greylisting proxies?

[Okan Demirmen]

On Sun 2006.10.01 at 14:49 -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:25:52PM -0401, Ray Lai wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:00:34PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:48:39PM -0400, Okan Demirmen wrote:
> >> >On Sun 2006.10.01 at 00:04 -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm currently stuck with my decision to run qmail in many places. :)
> >> >> 
> >> >> I really want to give greylisting a try since I'm seeing an average of 
> >> >> 80-85% of all mail is spam and the less cpu/disk/network I can spend 
> >> >> processing this junk the better.
> >> 
> >> and greylisting purges 97% of of them, with low (0?) false positives.
> >
> >Well, no.  There are some badly configured MTAs that either use
> >pools (Google) or give up after one try.
> 
> It suprises me how bad google does mail.... I just accept
> everything from their subnets, 'cause their headers are so broke
> I get false positives with spamassassin, never noticed a 'pool'
> problem.  Don't get spam from them though...
> 
> What MTA fails on one try?

i use this as a starting point: http://greylisting.org/whitelisting.shtml