Dan,

The "blocked while grey listed" number of 8 is dependent on the amount of
retries the remote mail server attempted while grey listed. Comcast servers
for example will try once per minute to deliver their mail. For example, if
you grey listed comcast for 25 minutes the blocked number would be around
24-26.

What is your grey listed time out? By default I believe it is set at 25
minutes. (-G 25:4:864) Perhaps it is too low or too high?

This is probably not your issue, but may give you a place to start.


Spamd anti-spam "how to" (spamdb)
http://calomel.org/spamd_config.html

--
 Calomel @ http://calomel.org
 Open Source Research and Reference


On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 01:00:44PM -0500, Daniel Barowy wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>  My apologies if you get this twice-- it just occurred to me that I sent 
>my original message out using the wrong email address.
>
>  I would greatly appreciate it someone would help me diagnose this spamd 
>problem.  We've been running spamd since last October, and until this past 
>Thursday, it was working great.  I may be mistaken, but I don't think I've 
>ever seen entries like the following before (email addresses munged 
>intentionally):
>
>GREY|76.96.62.64|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|<[EMAIL 
>PROTECTED]>|1200331179|1200345579|1200345579|8|0
>
>  Notice that the "block" column count is high.  In the past, I don't 
>recall this number ever exceeding 2.  Our users are now complaining that 
>they are not receiving many expected inbound emails.  My understanding is 
>that the GREY spamdb entry should turn to WHITE upon the remote MTA's 
>retry.  No?
>
>  I was troubleshooting a separate issue that required a restart of our 
>firewall (spamd is running on the firewall and not the mail servers), and 
>this problem popped up shortly thereafter.
>
>  I have not changed anything with our pf.conf or spamd.conf that I know 
>of, except that I've added a number of crucial mailhosts to our PF 
>whitelist-- something I've done dozens of times before.
>
>  This is on an OpenBSD 4.0 machine.
>
>  Any suggestions?
>
>Many thanks,
>Dan

Reply via email to