On 2006-02-18 22:57:26 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 02:15, Bob Dodds wrote: > > "More efficiently" is troll bait, considering how much > > inefficiency is due to spam, phish, and worm load and > > how much "access" is determined by lookup calls to > > the same other tools by either qpsmtpd or sendmail. > > The 'access' in question is a dbm style database and > sendmail does matches against it in c code. I know there > are valid arguments about perl code being as fast as > c sometimes, but sendmail does this pretty quickly. > My point was simply that if you can reject based on > this before the message even gets to the slower network > tests or content scans it will be more efficient.
So can (and does) qpsmtpd.
> For example, if you normally relay to an internal server
> and a lot of mail still comes addressed to an ex-user,
> rather than doing the remote smtp check for every message
> you can put:
> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ERROR:550 user unknown
> in the access database on the outside machine to bounce
> it without going any farther.
Explicitely enumerating the mail addresses which don't exist instead of
those which do seems to be a rather weird way of doing things but you
can do that in qpsmtpd with the badrcptto plugin.
Generally you would check if the user exists. There are a number of
plugins to do that: goodrcptto and my aliases_* plugins for those who
prefer plain text files, plugins which do LDAP, finger or SQL lookups
for those who prefer to keep their user database on a central host.
In the normal case with forkserver, BTW, my aliases plugin should be
faster than a DBM lookup: It only requires a single stat to check if the
config file has changed (normally it hasn't) and then an in-core hash
lookup.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Holger Lembke in dan-am
pgpiarz232tdh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
