[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: spamd extension
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: spamd extension
- From: Hannah Schroeter <hannah_(_at_)_schlund_(_dot_)_de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:22:31 +0200
- Mail-followup-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:12:34AM -0400, Frank Bax wrote:
>spamd only delays the *first* message between the two parties. After that
>there is no delay - as long as sender continues to use the same SMTP server.
And there's no mailout pool with shared queue involved, and if the
envelope sender address is always the same (i.e. no VERP, no SES,
no self-signed SRS, no SRS-enabled forwards, etc.).
>Have you tried whitelisting these servers:
>Is there an underlying assumption in your question that spamd is the actual
>problem? During the initial weeks of using spamd on my server, half of the
>complaints about undelivered email were not the fault of spamd.
So the other half *was* the fault of spamd?