"David F. Skoll" <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt Garretson wrote: > >> Anyway I guess we're getting away from what the OP was asking >> (rate-limiting with a milter) but I don't have any ideas about >> that. > > Rate-limiting with a milter is not a good idea; it's very heavy-weight > even if the milter is written in finely-honed C. You're much better > off using the built-in Sendmail 8.14 rate-limiting facilities or even > OS-level packet-filtering facilities.
You may be right in case of typical "medium+ load production server". [ I would not disagree strongly without "practical tests" first ] In my case I do not expect the spamtrap server to achieve peak minute throughput higher than one message per second (after iptables protections) unless DDoS occurs :-) More precise description in my case would be "avoiding accumulating excessive evidence" :-) [ I use trapped spam to send abuse reports via spamcop.net ] -- [pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : [email protected] Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good. -- Samuel Johnson _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
