Spam Filter ISP Forums : Feature Request: Greylisting https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/ Sat, 17 Oct 2026 20:36:53 +0000 Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:06:41 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 11.04 360 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=6137 <![CDATA[Spam Filter ISP Forums]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_images/web_wiz_forums.png https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/ <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : Hi Guys, long time no speak. I...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11251&title=feature-request-greylisting#11251 Author: lyndonje
Subject: 6137
Posted: 04 December 2007 at 4:06pm

Hi Guys, long time no speak.
 
I personally would also like to see a stand alone implementation of the greylisting - as I also only run a single instance of SF, infact only today have I switched to SFE!
 
I would be very interested in seeing these results, but it must be a settings you can configure per domain.
 
And desperando - don't worry, I'm sure everyone here would happily whitelist your servers Wink
]]> Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:06:41 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11251&title=feature-request-greylisting#11251 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : ImInAfrica: nice idea, but has...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11176&title=feature-request-greylisting#11176 Author: mikek
Subject: 6137
Posted: 21 November 2007 at 2:31am

ImInAfrica: nice idea, but has some problems:
- if the primary mailserver goes down, the secondary MX will be tried, and if it rejects all mail, customers will not be happy
- acting slowly and waiting means more concurrent connections and could be a performance issue
- spammers don't care how fast your smtp server reacts - most spams are sent via bot-nets anyway and those are stupid smtp sending engines which probably don't care about speed...

just my 2 cents...
]]> Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:31:30 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11176&title=feature-request-greylisting#11176 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : I&#039;ll second a stand-alone...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11175&title=feature-request-greylisting#11175 Author: ImInAfrica
Subject: 6137
Posted: 20 November 2007 at 4:33pm

I'll second a stand-alone greylisting!
Have been experimenting with some 'free' greylisitng (try hermes-project) only products but they don't handle the load at the moment.
the other problem is that all emails would come to SFI only from the ip address of the greylisting server. so all rbl functionality is lost + plenty more functionality.
we tried it on our secondary mx records as it seems to be getting way more spam then primary.
 
when it worked (for about 90 minutes at a time), it was great. almost no emails were processed, as they were 99% spam.
 
on this subject i have another idea/thought:
setup an additional MX record for one of your domains with the highest priority (read MX 99).
Chances that REAL mail servers will use that are minimal. within 10 minutes you should be able to see connections to that mx record. (100% spam from our testing).
If we then setup a smtp engine to listen on the mx records, act really slow (we know spammers like to send mail FAST), and most importantly drop the connection after the 'rcpt to:' command, only after the connection has been made to wait for 5-10 seconds. We know spammer prefer the high priority mx records, and we know they like fast smtp servers, so by acting slow, and dropping the connection, they won't try again = less spam. Any takers on the idea? any comments?
 
Amir
]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:33:11 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11175&title=feature-request-greylisting#11175 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : Speaking for myself, I would be...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11083&title=feature-request-greylisting#11083 Author: mikek
Subject: 6137
Posted: 29 October 2007 at 3:09am

Speaking for myself, I would be happy with a "single-server configuration only" greylisting feature, since I'm not running multiple servers... :-)

But that's just me, I guess...
]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:09:12 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11083&title=feature-request-greylisting#11083 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : Impressive, I was going to mention...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11082&title=feature-request-greylisting#11082 Author: mbrusl
Subject: 6137
Posted: 26 October 2007 at 11:38am

Impressive, I was going to mention something similar to that.  My thoughts were to put a flag on it and if the other connected SF machines were hooked up, it could bypass those machines for that message.

Michael

]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:38:16 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11082&title=feature-request-greylisting#11082 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : How about the SFE&#039;s cache...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11081&title=feature-request-greylisting#11081 Author: WebGuyz
Subject: 6137
Posted: 26 October 2007 at 11:31am

How about the SFE's cache locally and ALL of them periodically dump their caches to a SQL table and then copy table down back into memory. Most servers wait at least a few minutes before retrying to resend so if you can get all the SFE's to sync at the same time every x minutes it might not be too bad.
 
Even if there is a performance penalty the benefits of having greylisting amongst several SFE's might outweight that.
 
We all understand even you guyz have to work within the laws of physics.LOL
]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:31:22 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11081&title=feature-request-greylisting#11081 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : &#034;Unfortunately&#034; we were...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11080&title=feature-request-greylisting#11080 Author: LogSat
Subject: 6137
Posted: 26 October 2007 at 11:09am

"Unfortunately" we were having good results with a single SpamFilter, but to maximize performance, all the caching needs to be done in memory. This became a problem with multiple instances of SpamFilter however, as it was impossible to share the memory cache fast enough among multiple servers.

Having separate greylisting caches for multiple servers could cause an IP to be "allowed" on one server, but be "greylisted" on another. This could in turn cause a remote server to fail the delivery due to  too many retries, if the retries keep going to  different servers.

Our only option would be to implement greylisting, but only for single-server configurations, but are afraid this would cause too many complaints from customers who deployed multiple SpamFilters.

...opinions are welcome!
]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:09:21 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11080&title=feature-request-greylisting#11080 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : Roberto said they were working...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11079&title=feature-request-greylisting#11079 Author: WebGuyz
Subject: 6137
Posted: 26 October 2007 at 10:14am

Roberto said they were working on it but ran into problems with syncing triplet info between multiple SFE servers. Would be good to get an update....]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:14:30 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11079&title=feature-request-greylisting#11079 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : Any news from the greylisting...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11078&title=feature-request-greylisting#11078 Author: mikek
Subject: 6137
Posted: 26 October 2007 at 9:23am

Any news from the greylisting filter feature front? :-)


Edited by mikek - 26 October 2007 at 9:53am]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:23:56 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=11078&title=feature-request-greylisting#11078 <![CDATA[Feature Request: Greylisting : WebGuyz wrote: have set my...]]> https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=10440&title=feature-request-greylisting#10440 Author: Desperado
Subject: 6137
Posted: 04 July 2007 at 10:26am

Originally posted by WebGuyz WebGuyz wrote:

have set my outbound server retry to 2,10,30,60 & 90 minutes.

My normal queue is around 5-10K messages so a 2 minute or even a 30 minute retry is not an option.  We have it set a 2 hours which is the optimal for our outbound mail.

Originally posted by WebGuyz WebGuyz wrote:

I'm surprised you rusers haven't complained.

They have, in fact, complained but when we queue up 5000 messages to yahoo due to the graylisting ... and then we do a flush and they get blocked for "too many connections" error from yahoo, this is a problem.

I thought gray listing was a good idea until we started becoming victims of the above situation.  Good idea ... crappy implementation.



Edited by Desperado]]> Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:26:30 +0000 https://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=6137&PID=10440&title=feature-request-greylisting#10440