Thank you Peter.
> Actually, I don't have that table at all. > The greytrapping parts uses the database, not tables. The thinking is > roughly that it makes sense to have the whitelisted addresses in a table > (spamd-whitelist) for performance, but performance in response towards > grey or trapped hosts is not needed or expected, so the (possibly) > slower database lookup is considered sufficient. I was reading the man spamd http://man.openbsd.org/spamd Which was saying "When a host that is currently greylisted attempts to send mail to a spamtrap address, it is blacklisted for 24 hours by adding the host to the spamd blacklist <spamd-greytrap>. Spamtrap addresses are added to the /var/db/spamd database with the following spamdb(8) command:" So I'm expecting a spamd-greytrap table Le Mercredi 17 mai 2017 19h10, Peter N. M. Hansteen <pe...@bsdly.net> a écrit : On 05/17/17 17:34, Mik J wrote: > I did a new test (without brackets) and now it seems to work because the > IP address is marked as TRAPPED (before it was GREY) > # spamdb | grep x.x.x.x > TRAPPED|x.x.x.x|1495121479 That sounds like the normal and expected behavior, then. Good! > But the spamd-greytrap table remains empty > Peter, do you have any entries when you do pfctl -t spamd-greytrap -T show Actually, I don't have that table at all. The greytrapping parts uses the database, not tables. The thinking is roughly that it makes sense to have the whitelisted addresses in a table (spamd-whitelist) for performance, but performance in response towards grey or trapped hosts is not needed or expected, so the (possibly) slower database lookup is considered sufficient. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
