On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:44:19 +0000 Mike Zanker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05 March 2004 08:02 -0600 Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Counterintuitively, greylisting also saves bandwidth because the SMTP > > connection and tempfail traffic is substantially smaller than spam > > message bodies (you tempfail before reaching the SMTP DATA phase.) > > Except in the Exim implementation which does the checking after the > DATA phase. I find it still works very well, though. IIRC, they're working on that; check the Greylist ML archives (at http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/greylist-users/2004-March/thread.html) for the thread "Bagley: version 0.01 available"; you should find a link to http://workingcomputers.eris17.co.uk/bagley/bagley-0.01.tar.gz which apparently works with Exim 4 using either an ACL hook or local_scan. I know zero about Exim but apparently calling it from an ACL hook allows RCPT-time rejection. Postfix users will have to wait until Postfix 2.1 for SMTP policy delegation (see http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/newdoc/SMTPD_POLICY_README.html). A greylisting client ships as example code; apparently RC1 is waiting on documentation cleanup. One nice thing about this hook is that it sends envelope and other data to an external process, though I believe that happens before the DATA phase so you may need to persistently store that data and somehow associate it with the message in order for SA to make use of it. hth, -- Bob
