Robert, On 25/09/2007, Robert Felber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:47:28AM +0100, Giles Westwood i wrote: > > > I think it's a bit silly to score countries in the context of what > > > policyd-weight does. It weights helo/dns/etc with scoring tuned > > > specifically > > > for it. If you add something like this to the mix, it gets pretty badly > > > off-balanced I think? > > I think I've already stated that such changes (i.e. scoring by nationality, > race, sex, age, opinion, religion) will be only available as inofficial > patch which I do not host or give support for. > > I also recalled that I even have troubles with scoring OS/MTAs. > > People told me, that it is not up to me what to score but to give the > possibility to score. Which is partly true. > > I think it is ok for people who want to setup a denial rampart stage to > implement such possibilities themselves. > > Policyd-weight however does not want to be zero tolerant and a denial rampart. > > Policyd-weight does only want to enforce some configuration and > does get a little help by RBLs (I've already stated, that I would love to > get rid of RBLs, too). > > I admit, that the random sender check breaks this philosophy. The random > sender check may even cause false positives. However, the random sender > can be reconfigured - and the defaults score only high if DNSBL listed. > > > The success of viruses and phishing is not only the fault of people who > click on everything - it is more the fault of administrators who accept > any faulty configuration (permitted by RFCs). I sometimes have the feeling > that phishers and viruses point to the RFCs saying "see, look at the RFCs, you > must accept me, <nelson>Haa Haaa</nelson>" or "look at all the admins which > accept such SMTP crap even though the RFCs permit them to reject such stuff, > He He". > > > > My combination of postgrey and policyd with my corporate related tweaks > > works great though and we're considering removing dspam as it's hardly > > needed. > > > > I'm afraid that I use policyd unmodified on a different server with lots > > of unrelated clients but I had to set reject levels very high because > > genuine mail was rejected. > > Policyd-weight is designed to enforce a even more precise MTA configuration > for dialup users. I.e. people who want to run a MTA on a dialup should > setup every piece correctly and preferably sign up for a free DynDNS MX > host. Whereas people from foreign countries do not really have a chance. > Except sign up for a different country -- which is more of a burden and not > free. > > Note: I mail sometimes from home with a DUL listed dialup through ek-muc and > the home MTA must pass polw. This does only fail if I get a spamhaus listed > IP - which is resolved by reconnecting automatically. > > > This all does not mean that the patch is completely rejected, I haven't read > everything yet. >
This is all actually useful to know for us who - use policyd-weight, - want to make constructive suggestions, - and/or want to improve or build on policyd-weight, but the website doesn't quite make it all clear.. I think it would be nice, when you've got the time, to add a "Vision" or "For Potential Developers" section to the website where you explain what policyd-weight IS and what it IS NOT and what kinds of contributions would be useful and welcome. This thread suggests to me that there is a need out there to modify/customise policyd-weight, and although patches that take the program to areas where it was not intended to be is not useful for default inclusion, patches that makes it easier to customise or add modules to PW would be welcome? Enabling different kinds of usage, perhaps even grouping its operation (RBLs, RFC stuff, regional, anti-spam, experimental, etc.).. Also enabling you to get rid of RBLs in the situation where you want to do it, but keep other folks happy that desire RBLs to stay.. Anyway, my 2 cents.. Riaan ____________________________________________________________ Policyd-weight Mailinglist - http://www.policyd-weight.org/
