Re: [CentOS] using new sysconfig file
Kai Schaetzl wrote: Thanks for the hint. It was the CRLF sequence from creating the file on a Windows machine. I haven't had a problem with this in a long time, bash scripts etc. work fine, no matter if LF or CRLF is used, but it seems to make a difference when including a file. Glad to hear :-) BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason you're using 660? It's the default and been the default since postgrey saw the light of day, but I wouldn't deem it "recommended". ;-) I've been doing greylisting (with sendmail) for many years and started out with ten minutes. You're history with greylisting eclipses my recent foray into the field, so I bow to your experience. I took the 300 from the CentOS HowTo where they write:- Setting your delay to values larger than 300 Seconds ( 5 Minutes ) is really not recommended. This has proven to be quite successful, but there is a growing number of spammers that come back after exactly ten minutes, so I'm moving it up to 11 minutes on new machines. I doubt that 5 minutes gives any advantage in terms of faster turnaround time for ham messages. Most MTAs retry after 15 or 30 minutes, I would actually consider an MTA that retries after only 5 minutes a bit rude. I started my delay at 60 seconds as the how-to suggests, and have moved it up to 300 now. If your experience suggests 660, then I'll try that next ;-) Anything to kill Spam is cool in my book 8-) Ian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using new sysconfig file
Ian Blackwell wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:34:51 +0930: > I got similar errors by corrupting my /etc/sysconfig/postgrey file, by > putting text into the delay value - i.e. I replaced 660 with 66O. I > suggest you recreate the file (from scratch) to make sure you haven't > got some odd binary data in their somehow (null's?). Thanks for the hint. It was the CRLF sequence from creating the file on a Windows machine. I haven't had a problem with this in a long time, bash scripts etc. work fine, no matter if LF or CRLF is used, but it seems to make a difference when including a file. > > BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason > you're using 660? It's the default and been the default since postgrey saw the light of day, but I wouldn't deem it "recommended". ;-) I've been doing greylisting (with sendmail) for many years and started out with ten minutes. This has proven to be quite successful, but there is a growing number of spammers that come back after exactly ten minutes, so I'm moving it up to 11 minutes on new machines. I doubt that 5 minutes gives any advantage in terms of faster turnaround time for ham messages. Most MTAs retry after 15 or 30 minutes, I would actually consider an MTA that retries after only 5 minutes a bit rude. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using new sysconfig file
Kai Schaetzl wrote: I installed postgrey from rpmforge and wanted to use sysconfig to change options instead of overwriting the init file. However, I get a weird warning from postgrey. I'm not sure if this is a postgrey quirk or I use sysconfig the wrong way. /etc/sysconfig/postgrey: OPTIONS="--unix=/var/spool/postfix/postgrey/socket --delay=660" Hi Kai, I got similar errors by corrupting my /etc/sysconfig/postgrey file, by putting text into the delay value - i.e. I replaced 660 with 66O. I suggest you recreate the file (from scratch) to make sure you haven't got some odd binary data in their somehow (null's?). BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason you're using 660? Ian ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] using new sysconfig file
I installed postgrey from rpmforge and wanted to use sysconfig to change options instead of overwriting the init file. However, I get a weird warning from postgrey. I'm not sure if this is a postgrey quirk or I use sysconfig the wrong way. /etc/sysconfig/postgrey: OPTIONS="--unix=/var/spool/postfix/postgrey/socket --delay=660" /etc/rc.d/init.d/postgrey: OPTIONS="--unix=$SOCKET --delay=660" # Source an auxiliary options file if we have one, and pick up OPTIONS, if [ -r /etc/sysconfig/$prog ]; then . /etc/sysconfig/$prog fi Error: " invalid for option delay (number expected) (The quote marks are necessary!) Using the additional option directly in the init file works just fine. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
