Re: [CentOS] using new sysconfig file
Ian Blackwell wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:34:51 +0930: I got similar errors by corrupting my /etc/sysconfig/postgrey file, by putting text into the delay value - i.e. I replaced 660 with 66O. I suggest you recreate the file (from scratch) to make sure you haven't got some odd binary data in their somehow (null's?). Thanks for the hint. It was the CRLF sequence from creating the file on a Windows machine. I haven't had a problem with this in a long time, bash scripts etc. work fine, no matter if LF or CRLF is used, but it seems to make a difference when including a file. BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason you're using 660? It's the default and been the default since postgrey saw the light of day, but I wouldn't deem it recommended. ;-) I've been doing greylisting (with sendmail) for many years and started out with ten minutes. This has proven to be quite successful, but there is a growing number of spammers that come back after exactly ten minutes, so I'm moving it up to 11 minutes on new machines. I doubt that 5 minutes gives any advantage in terms of faster turnaround time for ham messages. Most MTAs retry after 15 or 30 minutes, I would actually consider an MTA that retries after only 5 minutes a bit rude. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using new sysconfig file
Kai Schaetzl wrote: Thanks for the hint. It was the CRLF sequence from creating the file on a Windows machine. I haven't had a problem with this in a long time, bash scripts etc. work fine, no matter if LF or CRLF is used, but it seems to make a difference when including a file. Glad to hear :-) BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason you're using 660? It's the default and been the default since postgrey saw the light of day, but I wouldn't deem it recommended. ;-) I've been doing greylisting (with sendmail) for many years and started out with ten minutes. You're history with greylisting eclipses my recent foray into the field, so I bow to your experience. I took the 300 from the CentOS HowTo where they write:- quoteSetting your delay to values larger than 300 Seconds ( 5 Minutes ) is really not recommended./quote This has proven to be quite successful, but there is a growing number of spammers that come back after exactly ten minutes, so I'm moving it up to 11 minutes on new machines. I doubt that 5 minutes gives any advantage in terms of faster turnaround time for ham messages. Most MTAs retry after 15 or 30 minutes, I would actually consider an MTA that retries after only 5 minutes a bit rude. I started my delay at 60 seconds as the how-to suggests, and have moved it up to 300 now. If your experience suggests 660, then I'll try that next ;-) Anything to kill Spam is cool in my book 8-) Ian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] using new sysconfig file
I installed postgrey from rpmforge and wanted to use sysconfig to change options instead of overwriting the init file. However, I get a weird warning from postgrey. I'm not sure if this is a postgrey quirk or I use sysconfig the wrong way. /etc/sysconfig/postgrey: OPTIONS=--unix=/var/spool/postfix/postgrey/socket --delay=660 /etc/rc.d/init.d/postgrey: OPTIONS=--unix=$SOCKET --delay=660 # Source an auxiliary options file if we have one, and pick up OPTIONS, if [ -r /etc/sysconfig/$prog ]; then . /etc/sysconfig/$prog fi Error: invalid for option delay (number expected) (The quote marks are necessary!) Using the additional option directly in the init file works just fine. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using new sysconfig file
Kai Schaetzl wrote: I installed postgrey from rpmforge and wanted to use sysconfig to change options instead of overwriting the init file. However, I get a weird warning from postgrey. I'm not sure if this is a postgrey quirk or I use sysconfig the wrong way. /etc/sysconfig/postgrey: OPTIONS=--unix=/var/spool/postfix/postgrey/socket --delay=660 Hi Kai, I got similar errors by corrupting my /etc/sysconfig/postgrey file, by putting text into the delay value - i.e. I replaced 660 with 66O. I suggest you recreate the file (from scratch) to make sure you haven't got some odd binary data in their somehow (null's?). BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason you're using 660? Ian ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
