On 26 September 2007, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Liviu Daia wrote: > > > Same, 28 minutes later: > > > > Sep 25 18:42:52 ns1 postfix-localhost/smtpd[13055]: 72BCD142A7: > > client=unknown[212.239.40.101] > > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/cleanup[21622]: 72BCD142A7: message-id=<[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> > > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/qmgr[1554]: 72BCD142A7: from=<[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]>, size=3724, nrcpt=2 (queue active) > > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/pipe[25075]: 72BCD142A7: to=<[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]>, relay=uucpz, delay=0.81, delays=0.75/0.01/0/0.05, dsn=2.0.0, > > status=sent (delivered via uucpz service) > > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/local[7260]: 72BCD142A7: to=<[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]>, relay=local, delay=1, delays=0.75/0.01/0/0.24, dsn=2.0.0, > > status=sent (delivered to command: /usr/local/sbin/gather_stats.pl > > /usr/local/share/Mail_stats) > > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/qmgr[1554]: 72BCD142A7: removed > > > > Should I have used spamd, the first two copies would have been > > discarded, but the third would have passed. > > Not good example. As that would still hit spamd (default 25 minutes > and your earlier one was too fast). Now it is whitelisted. > > Do you have a fourth email sent? (Which will have passed.)
Not at hand, but I haven't been looking for one either. Does spamd really behave like that? That is, ignore retries during the greylisting period, and whitelist messages only on subsequent attempts? Regards, Liviu Daia -- Dr. Liviu Daia http://www.imar.ro/~daia