On 25/09/2007, Robert Felber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:45:55PM +0100, Riaan Kok wrote: > > > > Anyway, my understanding of 4xx versus 5xx is this: a 4xx (defer) > from an > > > > MTA means go-away-and-try-again-later (keeping the responsibility > with the > > > > client), and a 5xx pretty much means go-away-and-notify-the-sender > (shifting > > > > the responsibility to the sender). > > > > > > > > By far the most of the messages that gets rejected by policyd-weight > in > > > > sheer numbers seems to be by hardcore listed spamfountains, and it > doesn't > > > > really matter how you reject the msg as long as you don't allow it! > > > > > > It does matter. As we always have to consider that the client maybe a > > > FP/legitime sender. In such cases the majority does indeed want that > > > (even if FP), the sender gets an _instant_ feedback - and not after 5 > > > or more days. > > > > I may not have been that clear, but FPs was handled in the "The > > remaining percentage" paragraph of mine.. To clarify my position: if > > the client is a true spammer, no person (that matters) would care how > > you get rid of it. > > So they don't care whether it is 5xx or 4xx - right? So we should rather > care how to handle real FPs or real misconfigurations just-in-time. > > For anyone who wants to wait 5 days they can set 4xx - but I don't see a > reason to make 4xx the default. > > > > > Policyd-weight has also been written with just-in-time in mind. Many > > > organisations need to react/communicate rather quickly. If an error > occurs, > > > even if false, then rather get to know of the error rather sooner than > later. > > > > Hmm, this is an advantage of rejects that defers would lack.. What's > > the list experience here: Does legit and false-positived senders seem > > to cope with the burden of notifying their MTA admin? > > The experience here is, that people call if they don't get their > (important) > mail delivered. I've had 4 or 5 such cases while developing > policyd-weight. > In all cases I got ahold of an Administrator - or had the chance to fix a > bug > in polw (1 time). > > And - I must admit - I said "luckily I don't need to dig 5 or more days > back > in the logs". And it was also a good feeling to not lose 5 days and to get > issue fixed on the same day because they have changed their setup. >
Fair enough, about default intentions, but the default operation of policyd-weight does not adhere to this. As low scores are more likely to be good and high scores are more likely to be bad, most of your false positives will sit in the score range just above the REJECTLEVEL.. And by default, everything above REJECTLEVEL and below DEFER_LEVEL gets deferred, 4xx'ed, and not rejected, 5xx'ed. So, policyd-weight already defers most of the problematic FP mails, and that sounds like exactly the kind of thing you prefer to avoid. Riaan
