From: Michael Monnerie (michael.monnerieit-management.at)
Date: Sun Jun 11 2006 - 02:25:25 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Samstag, 10. Juni 2006 17:53 Joao Inacio wrote:
> Checking SPF's seems very reasonable, does anyone have some bad
> experiences with it?

Nope. I reject on bad SPF. Should there be a FP, it's the admin of the
sender domain who must fix it. So it's always a win for you :-)

> Also, no experience at all with greylisting but i'm guessing there
> are many misbehaved servers that will simply drop the messages...

postgrey has an extra whitelist shipped with it, for the few sites who
have problems with it. If used alone, greylisting is reported to reduce
the SPAM rate by 80%. Very effective, very simple to use. I recommend
it.
Some admins don't use it because their users "can't wait the initial
delay to receive an e-mail". I educate my users, so for me that's no
argument *g*

mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660/4156531 .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "lynx -source http://zmi.at/zmi3.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: 44A3 C1EC B71E C71A B4C2 9AA6 C818 847C 55CB A4EE
// Keyserver: www.keyserver.net Key-ID: 0x55CBA4EE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBEi8VpyBiEfFXLpO4RAoD0AJ93rTKFGr0Nzcl4tfmxqBBLw9urVQCeKXzr
2yqs7sglxxxfhEMBJKEfjLU=
=rBnh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]