[Mimedefang] Re: Justifying greylisting to management
David F. Skoll
dfs at roaringpenguin.com
Wed Mar 1 11:12:56 EST 2006
Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
> But it is also within its rights to issue 4xx. And if it makes it
> more reliable then why not?
Well, it's a matter of philosophy, I guess. I can't see sendmail.org
accepting a patch for this. Look at it this way: Sendmail has every
reason to assume that if an SMTP client has a broken implementation of
the state machine on one message attempt, it probably will break on every
attempt, so why tempfail?
> This would not encourage the developers of broken servers to fix them
> or administrators to migrate. But it could be better than tempfailing
> after "data" because tempfailing "rcpt to" sometimes does not work -
> it will not waste bandwidth.
True; if bandwidth is a scarce resource, this could be an issue. It isn't
for us, and I suspect it isn't for most people -- I doubt e-mail uses
the majority of bandwidth at most organizations. Web browsing, P2P
and FTP probably swamp e-mail.
More information about the MIMEDefang