On May 23, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: Just read it as of when I said "your own users" I meant the users
of the host in question (the ones you mention above). More
specifically, the users using your host as a MSA (authenticated or
locally).
I don't trust "my users" in this context.
2: I never suggested disabling the AWL entirely. I suggested
disabling it for the above mentioned users.
I also suggested (and this is prefferable to disabling it in my
opinion) to separate the AWL so that you use one AWL for mail from
the above mentioned users and another for unathenticated mail from
external relays.
Is there any specific reason you do not want to use two different
AWLs for those two different types of traffic?
Non-standard configuration/setup I would have to maintain
*AND*
A lot of work to hack around a simple problem. The AWL works just
fine for mail from "my users" to other "my users". In fact, it works
exceedingly well for that. What value is there in separating them?
A more involved change would be to have the AWL store the
authentication state as well as mail address and relay IP/16. When
scanning mail from your own users using the same AWL database as
for for mail to your users, this seems necessary to me.
Again, this seems to be a lot of work for no real gain. What I
have proposed makes sense for widespread use. Why hack/slash/burn
when a good fix would improve it for everyone?
In case you haven't noticed it, your suggestion is not seen as a
"good fix" for the problem by everyone. I was merely suggesting
other ways to go about this.
Actually, that's not true. Nobody has suggested that this fix would
be bad. Matt was querying me thinking I had screwed up my trusted
hosts, but not a single person has suggested that this change would be
bad.
If you wish other peoiple to implement/accept something that fixes
your problem and you can't convince them that your own ideas are
good, it may be that alternative means of fixing the problem are
seen as better and therefore stand a bigger chance of being
implemented/eccepted.
What alternatives? So far I've only heard (a) disable the AWL (b)
don't use AWL it sucks and (c) hack the system to use different AWLs.
None of which really make any logical sense to solve the problem.
If you do implement your fix and submit it, please make it an
option. I for one would turn it off since it would not improve
things here.
You are the first person to say so. Can you explain why?
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
