On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:12:28PM +0200, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> Robert Felber wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 08:36:11AM +0200, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> >
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>Since a couple of days we are using policyd-weight and are really happy. It
> >>saves us from buying more powerfull hardware
> >>as the load on the server dropped from 90% to 10% (spamassassin has nothing
> >>todo anymore).
> >>
> >>So far i have two questions:
> >>
> >>1. how can we support the policyd-weight project, as we saved money for new
> >>hardware we would like to contribute
> >>something to the project.
> >>
> >>2. in the log i have quite often the following entry
> >>
> >>Oct 16 08:30:53 schilt postfix/policyd[20148]: decided action=DUNNO NULL
> >>(<>) Sender; delay: 0s
> >>I don't know exactly how to debug them, the process number is repeating
> >>quite often,
> >>any ideas?
> >>
> >
> >That are NULL-sender (mainly generated by DSN). You MUST let pass them. If
> >the NULL Sender try to deliver to non-existing
> >users then reject all mail for non-existent users.
> >
> >
> >
> If you say: i MUST let pass them, is there something i have todo or is
> policyd-weight passing them when i see the above
> message in the log?
This line indicated that polw does let pass them.
It is actually hard to verify whether blocking a NULL sender would be an FP
as the DSN may be send through another host or domain than as the mail with a
DSN request has been sent to.
(I mean those DSN-alike notifications "user has read the mail").
--
Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
Munich, Germany
____________________________________________________________
Policyd-weight Mailinglist - http://www.policyd-weight.org/
