On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:33:28PM +0300, Henrik Krohns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 05:17:38PM +0200, Robert Felber wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:47:53AM +0100, Riaan Kok wrote:
> > > On 16/10/2007, Robert Felber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 08:36:11AM +0200, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why MUST they pass?
> >
> > How to ensure that DSN arrive from hosts to which you have sent mail but
> > which
> > are listed or otherwise penalized by policyd-weight?
>
> If the host happens to be penalized and is legimate, don't you have more to
> worry about than losing some DSN? :)
Ok, a (ham) scoring for NULL sender will be done.
The default will be to let pass NULL sender unscored, though.
I am currently trying to make polw run on a mail system with 17 mil mails
(loadbalanced) per day (196 mails per sec).
With polw the smtpd porcesses grow gen sky (>1000)
Without polw postfix has around 200 processes open (per box).
So, NULL sender scoring would certainly add a neat side-effect while
being 'extremely' effective ;-)
--
Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
Munich, Germany
____________________________________________________________
Policyd-weight Mailinglist - http://www.policyd-weight.org/
