Joe Sloan wrote:
> [bump]
>
> no one has any idea?
>
> Joe
>
> Sloan wrote:
>> One thing that is not clear to me despite reading the docs, is this:
>>
>> When a domain or address is "whitelisted", is it exempted from all
>> tests, or from greylisting only?
In Policyd v1, all tests.
Cami
Hugo Monteiro wrote:
>
> I'm sorry if this is going to sound a bit strange, since Policyd is
> announced as an "an anti-spam plugin for Postfix".
>
> I have put together a small howto (two actually) on how to set up Qmail
> and Qmail-LDAP with Policyd and take advantage of all the good stuff
>
Jordi Moles wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i've been trying to set up policyd in my system for weeks, but i can't
> get it working as i want.
> I'm using postfix and freebsd in a local machine. Postfix has both uses:
> incoming and outgoing mails.
> The thing is that i've set up policyd to work on mysql and i
Nigel Kukard wrote:
>> Bleh. This is what the OP's problem is. He was doing
>> recipient throttling at the end_of_data phase. I'm
>> simply stating that it won't work regardless of what
>> version of Policyd is being used as Postfix does not
>> provide that information to Policyd at that stage.
>
Nigel Kukard wrote:
> v2 overcomes this and tracks the recipients for each smtpd instance. To
> track quotas precisely v2 can be used in smtpd_recipient_restrictions
> and smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions. v2 knows about the various
> restrictions.
False. You will not be able to
Nigel Kukard wrote:
>>> v2 overcomes this and tracks the recipients for each smtpd instance. To
>>> track quotas precisely v2 can be used in smtpd_recipient_restrictions
>>> and smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions. v2 knows about the various
>>> restrictions.
>> False. You will not be able to use Recipi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Question
> I set up a "spamtrap" address inside Policyd about 2 months ago...
>
>It is my understanding that the 'spamtrap' email address
>after it has been set up does **NOT** receive any futher emails
>
>there are two(2) spams in that emailaddress
Nigel Kukard wrote:
>>> Recipient Throttling can not work at smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions.
>>> What happens when 1 message has multiple recipients?
>>>
>>> Cami
>>>
>> Yes, the problem arises as soon as there is a message with more than one
>> recipient. As far as I know, Postfix does not pas
Edi Füllemann wrote:
> invalid triplet_array[8][2]: (recipient throttle):
>
> As I have turned off everything except throttling, I do not expect policyd to
> care about triplets.
>
> The server is debian etch with policyd version 1.80
>
> This is from main.cf
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>
Dietmar Braun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 6:06:25 PM, you wrote:
>>> Which test program?
>
>> I sent it to the list on Mar 10. You can get it from the list archives,
>> or I can send it to you if you want.
>
> Hm, I am getting errors while compiling it:
>
> /tmp/ccYisHFt.o: In
Dominique Feyer wrote:
>
> We use a setup with an InnoDB on our cluster (>10'000 domains, >100'000
> accounts). We convert MyISAM to InnoDB without problem. The only one
> chage in Policyd is the INSERT DELAY -> INSERT
>
> With a policyd database size of 3.4Go on a dual xenon 2.4Ghz 6Go RAM it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Cami
>
> I would be willing to try, though it would require some manpower and
> thus has to be planned in advance because more than one team is affected
> (we do not administer the SQL server, only Postfix and relevant
> processes).
As Nigel has pointed out, changing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> PS. which reason had the InnoDB crashes you mentioned, to have several
> eyes on that by our monitoring
It was > 2 years ago, i honestly don't recall.
The crashing wasn't the issue, the problem was when it
crashed, InnoDB goes into a recovery mode which it checks
all dat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> He found some MySQL document stating that with MyISAM tables, the complete
> table gets locked during database operations,
> whereas InnoDB type of table would only lock the particular table row (but be
> somewhat slower in use).
Correct.
> Could there be some prob
Miguel wrote:
> Hi, whre can i find a good how to about the postfix integration?
> Ok, i read the README file, but in that file is explained the options
> that policyd supports, but how do i enable them in postfix?
Perhaps you should re-read the README, it is covered in there.
Cami
-
Alexandru Constantinescu wrote:
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> permit_mynetworks,
> permit_sasl_authenticated,
> check_recipient_access mysql:/etc/postfix/mysql-recipient.cf,
> reject_unauth_destination,
> permit_mx_backup,
> permit_auth_destination,
> check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:1003
Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Cami Sardinha wrote:
>
>> Policyd was test/written for MySQL 4.x. This doesn't mean it
>> shouldn't behave the same for v5. Unless i'm mistake (or things have
>> changed between versions), using "DELETE QU
Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> The triplet table currently contains 5.5M entries and every hour ~250k
> entries are expired. Without maintenance this took some minutes now.
> So I tried a "mysqlcheck -r" on the database (which took only two
> minutes) and after this cleanup runs much faster.
5.5M e
Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> After only 3 days now the database extended from 3M to 6M in the
> triplet table while cleanup takes 3-5 minutes now, while policyd
> handles all mails as pass through and accepts very much spam :-(
Policyd database entries can go into the millions, at least 10-20M.
>
Sebastian Tymków wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recntly I've been testing new configuration for my policyd. I wanted to
> limit sending messages using _rcpt_max,_rcpt_cur and SASL.
> Everything is almost all right except ... Some messages in database have
> status _rcpt_cur=1 and some got _rcpt_cur=2.
> When
Dietmar Braun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yesterday, I emptied my triplet table to get it re-built. Since then,
> policyd isn't expiring any records any more, the table wich had 4 Mio
> entries in average is nearly at 6 Mio now, and as you can also see in
> the graph attached, the hourly thread peaks (due to
Sebastian Tymków wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recently I've installed policyd and become test it.
> It's doing good job but I've got few questions.
> 1) Is there any possibility to set policyd not to INSERT incoming emails
> from
> athor addresses than my users/domains ?
> If I use this configuration :
> ==
Sebastian Tymków wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for patch to policyd that enable throttling per user but
> per day.
> Now I see it can only block user for given time (ex. 1000 mails per hour
> or per day).
> What I'm looking for is patch to send email per day , ex:
> 1000 mails per 19th of febr
Sebastian Tymków wrote:
>
> Please supply DEBUG=3 & Postfix logging that shows this is occurring.
>
> OK, it was my mistake . I set _count_max instead of _rcpt_max. When I
> changed it it works fine.
>
> Ps. Some documentation would be very helpfull and can save much time ;)
Patches are more t
Sebastian Tymków wrote:
>
> I wonder if it's normal behaviour that when I try to send email with
> few addresses policyd counts only last one insted of all
> emails. Maybe my configuration is wrong ?
> Is there any workaround to count all emails ?
Please supply DEBUG=3 & Postfix logging that
Tobias Kreidl wrote:
>
> Why "0 days" and "1h"? These look like the default, rather than the
> actual values in the policyd.conf file.
> Is there a bug in "cleanup" or am I doing something incorrectly?
None. Its strictly a cosmetic DEBUG printf()/logmessage() that
was left behind. Things are work
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> Quota works but _abuse_tot doen't change.
It does change.
> Can somebody point me the reason of such behavior?
_abuse_tot counts the number of times a specific
email address / domain has been blacklisted.
This is used for internal Policyd use only.
Cami
Arvinn Løkkebakken wrote:
>
> What am I trying to do? I am trying to internally in policyd pick
> certain recipient domains that will not be subjected to greylisting. I
> want all other recipient domains to be subjected to greylisting. I
> however do not want to maintain a list of all my recipi
Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> We just had a problem with the triplets database getting too big, causing
> cleanup to take ages, and policyd getting into "bypass" mode frequently.
> What are the best practices for keeping the triplets down.. ?
>
> We had AUTO_WHITELIST_NUMBER=500, will hosts that ar
Arvinn Løkkebakken wrote:
> Arvinn Løkkebakken wrote:
>> Hi. Thanks for a fine product.
>>
>> I have set DAEMON=1 in the config.
>> I have some troubles with running policyd as a daemon though. Every time
>> after starting policyd in a ssh terminal I am not able to end the ssh
>> terminal when lo
Arvinn Løkkebakken wrote:
> Michael Brennen wrote:
>> On Monday 03 December 2007, Arvinn Løkkebakken wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have set DAEMON=1 in the config.
>>> I have some troubles with running policyd as a daemon though. Every time
>>> after starting policyd in a ssh terminal I am not able to end
Jon Duggan wrote:
> This email can be ignored. The .conf had SENDERMSGLIMIT=512 and users
> getting caught were the heavy ones.
>
> I guess the limit in the conf overrides the '0' placed in sql?
Correct.
Cami
-
This SF.net
Olivier Smedts wrote:
>
> I now think that policyd doesn't need even a little modification to make
> it work perfectly with MySQL replication. It seems that there is no need
> for "IF EXIST" or "IF NOT EXIST" because UPDATE and DELETE can be made
> on non-existent keys, and INSERT DELAYED doesn
Tobias Kreidl wrote:
> I am getting some odd results when I try to send mail that contains one
> or more invalid addresses -- I don't want the mail client to reject
> sending the message altogether, just report back the errors. It seems as
> if I get greylisted almost immediately, which shouldn'
Nate wrote:
>
> Sorry Cami, I missed the loop. This was initially noticed by
> watching the mysql process monitor and seeing LIMIT 10 at the end
> of the policyd cleanup queries. I missed entirely the loop which
> exists that resends the query if 10 rows were affected. With
> that e
Tobias Kreidl wrote:
>
> As to the choice of 100,000 as the query limit, I would think this
> would be machine- and database-dependent to some extent, and still think
> it might be a good idea to at least allow the system administrator to
> respecify it (but leave the default where it is). Is
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Mon, October 8, 2007 08:29, Cami Sardinha wrote:
> if you have to do it
>
> do
> {
> } while count(bar() > 10)
>
>
> did you not learn comal in school ?
No.
Cami
Cami Sardinha wrote:
> Tobias Kreidl wrote:
>> The issue of having the LIMIT set, period, instead of it being an option
>> is a concern.
>> If one ever gets behind, ti would appear that depending on the load,
>> you'd never catch up.
>>
>> Your po
Tobias Kreidl wrote:
>
> The issue of having the LIMIT set, period, instead of it being an option
> is a concern.
> If one ever gets behind, ti would appear that depending on the load,
> you'd never catch up.
>
> Your point was that there are times where you might actually deal with
> over 100
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> Hello again.
>
> Did anybody make any efforts to make policyd or some of its parts to
> work with memcache?
There has been no requirements/requests from anyone for such
functionality.
Cami
-
This SF.ne
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> I will play with ulimit (was 1024 :( ) first and wait until bots will
> wake up again :)
> May be it's possible to increase the limits by policyd instead of shell?..
There is no guarantee that Policyd's attempt to raise it will work.
I do recommend you do some kernel tuning
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> I'll try to change ulimit and possible MAXFD.
> But it's still bad that policyd needs to be restarted after it reaches
> limit.
Artem,
Please downgrade to v1.80 and check/test if this still occurs.
Nigel, can you dig into this further?
-
r5 | nkukard | 2007-06-20 19:48:0
Tobias J. Kreidl wrote:
> So, in the case of 5k connections per minute, the server is probably
> saturated... does policyd log that it's reached its limit?
Connections per minute do not mean much. Concurrent connections
is what matters. It should log when its limit has been reached.
> If more con
Tobias J. Kreidl wrote:
> Where is the maximum number of concurrent policyd processes defined?
> Is it defined/restricted by the limit of file descriptors?
Correct. Depending on your OS, ulimit -n will show the limit and
starting Policyd up in DEBUG=3 mode will show if its managed to
override that
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> Cami Sardinha ?:
>> What types of load?
>
> What do you mean? :) policyd begin to eat 100% of one cpu core, even
> after stopping postfix. The only way to fix that is restarting policyd.
Do you only have 1 machine as your MX? Do you run Policyd on
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> Under high load policyd (1.81) stalls with 100% cpu load and excessive
> select() in strace
> Any suggestions?
What types of load? Why are there so many concurrent connections open
to Policyd? What is the maximum amount of connections you've configured
Policyd to allow?
Artem Bokhan wrote:
>> The hole comes from the fact that batch mailers / spammers
>> who often send in batches of 25/50/100 no longer have do
>> have greylisting applied to all the intended recipients.
>
> If the one message from the batch passes through greylisting, then
> reasonably to assume
Artem Bokhan wrote:
>> Sorry, this as it opens up a huge hole in how greylisting
>> works and allowing null recipients is as good as not using
>> any greylisting at all.
>>
>
> There is no hole when MTA checks rctps.
The hole comes from the fact that batch mailers / spammers
who often send in bat
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> Cami Sardinha ?:
>> Artem Bokhan wrote:
>>
>>> With one empty field (empty recipient) triplet is still triplet... but
>>> with one empty field :)
>>
>> No, its not. Run 2 instances of Policyd and the triplet will be
>
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> With one empty field (empty recipient) triplet is still triplet... but
> with one empty field :)
No, its not. Run 2 instances of Policyd and the triplet will be
COMPLETE and the recipient will NEVER be empty.
Cami
---
Artem Bokhan wrote:
>> You can not use greylisting without *all* the required information
>> needed to make the "triplet".
>
> Without ignorance of principles I can't ) With ignorance - I can. The
> result in most sutiations will be the same.
If something is unclear about the last paragraph, fee
Artem Bokhan wrote:
> The reason of this behaviour is:
>
> I use policyd with smtpd_data_restrictions to allow fast sender
> verification by foreign clients.
> With smtpd_data_restrictions and multiply rcpt's per envelope no
> recipients are passed to policyd by postfix.
>
> Uder that condition
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 03:27:08PM +0200, Cami Sardinha wrote:
>> Indeed. We had training mode running for about 2 months in
>> order to identify the top senders / email addresses. After
>> that point when people complained, they were whitelisted.
>
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:32:08PM +0200, Cami Sardinha wrote:
>> As Wietse has pointed out, you should be whitelisting the legitimate bulk
>> senders..
>
> In an ISP environment, it is not obvious to know all your legitimate smtp
> clients..
Inde
Cami Sardinha wrote:
> Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> has anyone experienced bad interaction between greylisting and (by default)
>> low smtpd_hard_error_limit settings in postfix? Our smtpd_hard_error_limit
>> has always been pretty high so I can't tel
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> has anyone experienced bad interaction between greylisting and (by default)
> low smtpd_hard_error_limit settings in postfix? Our smtpd_hard_error_limit
> has always been pretty high so I can't tell from my own experience. But
> with greylisting, clients get an e
John Beaver wrote:
> Cami Sardinha wrote:
>> Tobias Kreidl wrote:
>>> If one is running multiple SMTP servers, is there any harm running
>>> "cleanup" from each one
>>> at the same time via a cron job, or is it better to stagger the times a bit?
>
am.lists wrote:
> Recently, I was emailing a system admin at one of the major ISPs. He
> told me that we were blocked for going over their throttle limits,
> which he described as 10 simultaneous connections per IP and 100
> messages per hour.
>
> Now. I use policyd 1.8x and know that I can do the
Tobias Kreidl wrote:
> If one is running multiple SMTP servers, is there any harm running
> "cleanup" from each one
> at the same time via a cron job, or is it better to stagger the times a bit?
If all your SMTP servers are connecting to the SAME / SINGLE Policyd
database, why on earth would you
Fernando Schubert wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a question about throttle - SENDERTHROTTLE -(one more, sorry). In
> the readme it states that `pass` meains a failure.
> I`m having thousand messages from pass like this:
>
> Aug 24 03:27:32 srv-06-lb postfix-policyd-sf: rcpt=3132219, throttle=pass
>
>
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
>
> #
> # port to bind to:
> #
> # port which the policy daemon will listen on
> #
> BINDPORT=10031
>
> I think this is correct and there is not any service in this port:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# netstat -punta | grep LISTEN
> tcp0 0 127.0.0.1:10024
Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> Since there is not yet (is this planned?) SPF support to policyd, does
> someone here has a good idea for spf policy server for postfix ?
This functionality will not be built into Policyd, there is a different
policy server which does SPF checking.
Cami
Fernando Schubert wrote:
> Hi everybody!
>
> I`m facing a problem with SENDERTHROTTLE
> I use it to enforce quota in a small mail cluster (8 servers)
> environment. I have large traffic and I`m encountering some problems
> with throttling.
> My defaults are 1000 mails or 40Mb of data in 24 hours
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
>
>
> Cami Sardinha escreveu:
>> Once your
>> system starts processing 10 000 concurrent connections to your
>> MX then you need to start raising limits.
>
>My mail systems probably doesnt handle 1 connections in a
Dave wrote:
>
> ;)
> Cool - thanks for the pointer. In fact MAXFDS is set to 4096 in the
> Makefile. I've altered it to 1024 and policyd now only uses 12456kB.
>
> 1024 should be more than enough slots for my use but we'll see...
>
> Any particular reason it was increased to 4096 in the Ma
Dave wrote:
> Policyd seems to be taking a huge chunk of memory - is there any way I can
> control it?
>
> Currently it runs in 34032 kB. This wasn't a problem when I had a whole
> server but I'm currently running on a memory-restricted VPS and I can't see
> why it wants so much memory. The s
Voytek Eymont wrote:
> I'm running Postfix with popb4smtp and policyd, it all works well.
>
> however, I've now tried sending email from my Palm hand/held over GPRS;
>
> I do a POP retrieve pass, wait, then try to send, however, Snapper mail
> fails to send and says like below:
>
> am I getting
Hi Aslan,
> I've see more information about the table throttle_from_instance, and I
> found this old thread in the list.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/policyd-users%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg00221.html
>
> Cami, you said that we can truncate the table throttle_from_instance
> once a month, wh
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
> --- Cami Sardinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And what happens when someone requests a 3rd, 4th and 5th MySQL
>> backup option?
>
> nobody would need that :)
> The approach that I suggested would work perfectly for 1+1 redundanc
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
> It would be great to implement a new option in policyd.
> Technically it should not be difficult.
>
> The new option would list a backup MySQL server/dbname/user/password,
> and if it's specified, every INSERT statement is duplicated on that server.
>
> This would al
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
>
>I would like to greylist connections that are trying to send messages
> to unknown addresses. Today those connections receives 'unknown user'
> and policyd never heard of them. I would like them to receive the Policy
> Rejection because of greylist=n
Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> We run policyd v1.81 as user/group policyd, chroot to an empty
> directory /var/empty/policyd/. But then policyd isn't able to
> resolve my MYSQLHOST hostname. If I use ip-address it works fine.
>
> It complains:
>
> policyd: connecting to mysql database:
>
Matt Beckman wrote:
> Thanks, John.
>
> How can I determine if it is down? I opened a telnet session on port 10031 to
> localhost and it connected. I didn't issue any commands, though, if you have
> some testing suggestions. Also, the logs show that postfix-policyd connected
> (including showin
Joe Lanager wrote:
> Cami,
>
> So once I've identified and added the MTA/networks I want to the
> whitelist I can just run a query to empty out the triplet table?
Yup, "TRUNCATE TABLE triplet;" is the better option.
Cami
-
Joe Lanager wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We've been using PolicyD for going on a year now in addition to our
> already established antispam solution and are very much impressed with
> it so far. Initially after deployment there was a relatively small
> amount of spam making it to the milter, but as expect
Aslan Carlos wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I has many problems to use the policyd, maybe some bugs for use in
> my environment, in specify using the throttle rcpt and throttle from
> putting in smtpd_recipient_restriction I looked the policyd doing two
> INSERTs. the first insert in the 'throttle'
Tim B. wrote:
> Something around the lines of:
>
> Perfect world would be:
> If sender or sender domain wants to send to recipient or recipient
> domain check to see if it is explicitly allowed or not allowed.
>
> If there is no explicit rule continue on normally.
I managed to get some time ove
Tim B. wrote:
>
> Thanks for getting back about this, I wish I knew C better, I'd get
> working on it myself if I did
I might have some time next week if one of my other projects
finishes early. What exactly are the requirements?
Cami
---
John Beaver wrote:
> Ronan Mullally wrote:
>
>> - What effect does whitelisting have on throttles? Does a message that
>>passes a whitelist get added to a sender's quota?
No, whitelist is a way to bypass Policyd completely.
We are aware that some people would like the functionality
to choo
Tim B. wrote:
> If this is already in policyd, then I'm over looking it some how so feel
> free to thwap me upside the head
>
> I'm currently evaluating policyd and other policy servers for a fairly
> busy system. So far I'm working with policyd-v1.80.tar.gz (non
> development branch). We
Sam Przyswa wrote:
> HI,
>
> I installed Postfix-PolicyD, it's really a very good, perhaps the best,
> spam filter we tested. I have two question:
>
> 1) There is some spam again (very few) is it a ways to send the spams
> headers on the list or something else to add the blacklist-helo and
> s
Nigel Kukard wrote:
>
> Policyd now has a developers mailing list, policyd-devel. The purpose of
> this list is to provide an environment for the developers of Policyd,
> entities maintaining their own patchsets or anyone with something to
> contribute to come and discuss. This list is aimed at th
Hi All,
With immediate effect, I'm happy to announce that
Nigel Kukard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will be taking over
Policyd. He knows the code fairly well and is
responsible for the non-blocking read()/write()
code that was included some time ago.
I'll be working together with him at the start but
he
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
>
> Cami Sardinha escreveu:
>> I was thinking about this feature request. I personally greylist
>> all incoming mail but i can see merit in your idea since (apparently)
>> up to 95% of spam originates from windows based machines.
&g
Chris Covington wrote:
> hello list, Cami,
>
> I've been using policyd since July 2005 and it's been the best thing
> since sliced bread for us. I would like to make a feature request (or
> perhaps this can be configured without changing policyd). I would
> like to, for domains which require ver
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>> Some companies have heavily loaded databases so in order to minimize
>> downtime they run the cleanup script weekly.
>
> In case you're only using whitelisting+greylisting (as we are, ATM), doing
> the auto-whitelisting asynchronously takes aways 1/3rd of the queries for
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>
> I have a question about the auto-whitelisting algorithm; why is it
> implemented in greylist.c and not in cleanup.c? The way it is done now
> (synchronously) means an extra query ('SELECT COUNT(*) FROM triplet
> WHERE _host='%s' AND _count > 0') for each policyd request
Dean Manners wrote:
> Cami,
> My apologies. Debian sarge (2.4.18 kernel). Policyd was backported
> from testing to sarge.
>
> # dpkg --list |grep policyd
> ii postfix-policyd 1.80-2.1
> anti-spam plugin for Postfix
>
> Installed with Debians apt-get, from our custom package
Dean Manners wrote:
> -
> Jun 15 12:02:55 secondary postfix-policyd: connection from: 127.0.0.1 port:
> 49516 slots: 8 of 4096 used Jun 15 12:02:55 secondary postfix-policyd:
> DEBUG: fd: 8 select(): fd 8 is ready for read Jun 15 12:02:55 secondary
> postfix-policyd: DEBUG: fd: 8 connection got
jibie wrote:
> Jun 5 00:03:29 mx postfix/smtpd[64668]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> mail.censored.de[??.??.??.??]: 450 4.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Recipient address rejected: Policy Rejection- Exception triggered by
> policyd - Simplicato; from=<> to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> proto=ESMTP
> helo=
P
jibie wrote:
> Cami Sardinha wrote:
>> jibie wrote:
>>
>>>> If one really wanted to do this in Policyd, you will need to run 2
>>>> instances of Policyd. (one doing sender throttling by SASL/from
>>>> addresses and another instance throttling
Vladimir wrote:
> I'm having some difficulty getting policyd working under Postfix 2.3.3
> under Centos. I would like to use it in the SMS gateway scenario where I
> limit the amount of messages that can be sent out to an external address
> in a period of time.
>
> I compiled, installed and starte
jibie wrote:
>> If one really wanted to do this in Policyd, you will need to run 2
>> instances of Policyd. (one doing sender throttling by SASL/from
>> addresses and another instance throttling by HOST addresses).
>
> Haha =) This is exactly what I thought of initially, but I dismissed it
> as
John Beaver wrote:
> jibie wrote:
>> Is there any way to activate both sender throttling by from address and
>> ip address?
>>
>> The reason I ask, is that I wanted to use policyd on an incoming mail
>> gateway machine, which from time to time, gets a sudden burst of email
>> from spammers, whi
Eric A. Litman wrote:
>
>> To do exactly what you asked for is difficult because the
>> destination host, A or MX details are not passed as a
>> parameter from postfix to the policy daemon.
>
> OK, I thought that might be the case.
>
> The two possible solutions to this that come to mind are to
Eric A. Litman wrote:
> I recently switched to policyd from tumgreyspf hoping I'd find a
> solution to one of the more annoying challenges of greylisting in
> general. Policyd doesn't yet support what I'm hoping to find, but
> maybe someone knows of a clever solution to a problem we all face.
Andy Lee wrote:
> I just tried defer_code=451 but my logs are still showing that
> defer_if_permit is using 450. Can anyone else confirm? I am running
> Postfix 2.1.5.
This needs to go to the Postfix mailing list.
Cami
-
Thi
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 22:51, Thomas Johnson wrote:
>> Just a thought, but couldn't you also do this in main.cf:
>> defer_code = 451
This is the better route to take.
Cami
-
This SF.net email is sponsor
Filip Cristian wrote:
> Cami Sardinha wrote:
>> Filip Cristian wrote:
>>
>>> Can anybody please tell me what is the scope of throttle_from_instance
>>> table ? I can't find in to the Readme file or in the config file
>>> anything related to this
Filip Cristian wrote:
> Can anybody please tell me what is the scope of throttle_from_instance
> table ? I can't find in to the Readme file or in the config file
> anything related to this table and on my server this table has grow very
> big (1.2 G).
You can truncate this table once a month.
Cam
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
