Re: [spamdyke-users] New version: spamdyke 3.1.7
Andrei Why I can't to whitelist sender domain rdns-whitelist-filefrom the rDNS check ? for what is this option: rdns-whitelist-file ??? thanks - Original Message From: Peter Kieser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: spamdyke users spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 1:14:30 AM Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] New version: spamdyke 3.1.7 He's asking if you can whitelist sender domains from the rDNS check ... Which you can't. -Peter Sam Clippinger wrote, On 4/8/2008 11:59 AM: You can't whitelist rDNS names that don't exist. If the remote server has no rDNS, you can only whitelist its IP address, the recipient address or the sender address. It's possible I don't correctly understand your question. If you sent your spamdyke configuration file, your rDNS whitelist file and a few example IP addresses, I may be able to provide more assistance. -- Sam Clippinger Andrei Visan wrote: hi, i have a problem. rdns-whitelist-file doesn't work !!! i put reject-empty-rdns reject-unresolvable-rdns reject-ip-in-cc-rdns my observation is : many legitimate domain doesn't have a reverse DNS !!! i put the domain in rdns-whitelist-file ; it didn't work !!! also i have installed the latest version 3.1.7 what shall i do? - Original Message From: Juliano Valente [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: spamdyke users spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 4:01:14 PM Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] New version: spamdyke 3.1.7 Great! Thanks a lot! 2008/4/8, Andreas [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Sam, I just upgraded, it works perfect. Thanks a lot for that great tool. Andreas Am Montag, den 07.04.2008, 09:02 -0500 schrieb Sam Clippinger: spamdyke version 3.1.7 is now available: http://www.spamdyke.org/ This version fixes a bug in the white/blacklist file processor that was incorrectly matching domains when wildcards were used. Thanks to Tom for reporting this one. Version 3.1.7 is backwards-compatible with version 3.1.6; simply replacing the old binary with the new one should be safe. -- Sam Clippinger ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org mailto:spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org mailto:spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
Re: [spamdyke-users] Black/whitelists first?
In the current version, you'd have to edit the source and it's not a small change. In the upcoming version, I've already reordered the tests this way. Changing the order will still require editing the source but the changes will be much smaller (I've refactored the filter code quite a bit). spamdyke checks DNS RBLs first because it tries to find a way to reject the incoming connection as quickly as possible. For example, if the connection matches a DNS RBL and you're not using sender/recipient whitelist files or SMTP AUTH, spamdyke will not start qmail at all -- it will imitate an SMTP server long enough to reject the connection. When I wrote that code, I judged it was more important to close qmail than to prevent DNS queries. Because so many spamdyke installations are using sender/recipient whitelists and SMTP AUTH, this logic has become outdated. -- Sam Clippinger Marc Van Houwelingen wrote: I have a domain that is constantly bombarded with incoming spam. The spam comes in by the thousands, all to random names @mydomain.com. Spamdyke is successfully blocking all of them using recipient-blacklist-file to block the domain and recipient-whitelist-file to allow the 10 or 15 actual legit exceptions. This works great - but the problem is Spamdyke usually rejects most of this incoming junk for other reasons (RDNS, RBL, etc) before even checking the blacklist file. The net result is the same of course, but my mail server ends up having done a bunch of extra DNS/RBL lookup work when it could have rejected the email simply based on the recipient. My question is: Is there a way to make Spamdyke check the recipient-[black|white]list-files before doing the other resource-costly lookups? -Marc ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
[spamdyke-users] Contributed Scripts
Harald Hinz offered a script for blacklisting in December. Others have also talked about offering scripts. I am thinking of putting some time into a script, I have two questions for the community: 1. Spamdyke Community Script Library Sam is obviously under considerable pressure to develop the main code line, how about we create a SourceForge project to facilitate scripts from a variety of people on a variety of topics? 2. Graylisting Cleanup Script My own idea is not new and is one that people have asked for. I need to know if there is interest for it and, from Sam, if you are otherwise going to handle this in the core product. I use Graylisting and find it knocks out 90%+ of all spam. My concern is the runaway growth of the database that underpins this. (The matter is mentioned here: http://www.spamdyke.org/documentation/FAQ.html#SUGGESTION5 and is a recurrent theme on this list.) My contribution would be for a simple approach removes Graylist entries for recipients that are known to be bogus. I propose a solution that is tuned for a Vpopmail installation; I propose only dealing with domains that have simple qmail-default rules like delete and bounce and not dealing with complex cases with downstream recipient filters, e.g. domains operating Mailman. Would others like this? My programming skills are in languages like Java, but I imagine that the likely re-use of my script would want it in a generic Unix shell or perhaps Perl implementation, am I right? Andrew. ___ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
