st" seems kind of contradictory to me... :-) Just my .02, which,
>>> with the state of the dollar, is worth even less today than last week. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael J. Colvin
>>> NorCal Internet Services
>>> www.norca
In fact, "Allowed
>> Greylist" seems kind of contradictory to me... :-) Just my .02, which,
>> with the state of the dollar, is worth even less today than last week. :-)
>>
>>
>> Michael J. Colvin
>> NorCal Internet Services
>> www.norcalisp.com
>>
>>
&g
al Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Marcin Orlowski
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:42 AM
> To: spamdyke users
> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] Greylisting wishes
>
>
> Yes, but, by definition, any e-mail that is "ALLOWED" on a domain that has
> greylisting enabled, is an "ALLOWED GREYLIST", since all e-mails would be
> greylisted prior to being allowed. :-)
Unless it's graylist-whitelisted. Then it's, from statistical point of
view I am having mostly in mind
IL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Marcin Orlowski
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:17 AM
> To: spamdyke users
> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] Greylisting wishes
>
> Michael Colvin wrote:
> > Doesn't it already log "DENIED GREYLISTED&
Interesting idea. I'll put that on my list for a future version.
-- Sam Clippinger
Andras Korn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:21:51AM +0200, Bgs wrote:
>
>
>> Add another dot to your me-too-list :)
>>
>> Adding more info about which rule allowed or disallowed a specific mail
>> would he
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:21:51AM +0200, Bgs wrote:
> Add another dot to your me-too-list :)
>
> Adding more info about which rule allowed or disallowed a specific mail
> would help both in investigations and stats...
If log messages are changed anyway, how about making them configurable using
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 07:04:09PM +0200, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
> > I've already made this change in version 4.0.0 -- it has a new flag to
> > allow spamdyke to create domain folders itself. It can't be automatic
> > because some sites need the ability to activate/deactivate graylisting
> > f
Add another dot to your me-too-list :)
Adding more info about which rule allowed or disallowed a specific mail
would help both in investigations and stats...
Regards
Bgs
Sam Clippinger wrote:
> I could do that if it would be useful. Now is the time for changes like
> this, since version 4.0
Michael Colvin wrote:
> Doesn't it already log "DENIED GREYLISTED" when it greylists an address,
> then when it is sent again, and passes the greylist test, it logs
> "ALLOWED"... Doesn't that already identify greylisted e-mails?
No. One means message is graylisted, the other, message has passed.
Sam Clippinger wrote:
> "ALLOWED_GRAYLISTED" could be useful if graylisting isn't active for all
> domains.
I'd be useful if graylisting all domains too, to find out how many senders
did not retry (due to, most probably, being spammers).
Regards,
--
"Daddy, what "Formatting drive C:" means?"...
Sam Clippinger wrote:
> I could do that if it would be useful. Now is the time for changes like
> this, since version 4.0 won't be backwards compatible anyway. What
> about changing the log message for other reasons too? For example,
> ALLOWED_WHITELISTED_IP, ALLOWED_WHITELISTED_SENDER, etc.
t;>
>> Michael J. Colvin
>> NorCal Internet Services
>> www.norcalisp.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
Yes, it's very useful, I guess...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:50:38 -0500
Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could do that if it would be useful. Now is the time for changes like
> this, since version 4.0 won't be backwards compatible anyway. What
> about changing the log message for ot
.02, which,
> with the state of the dollar, is worth even less today than last week. :-)
>
>
> Michael J. Colvin
> NorCal Internet Services
> www.norcalisp.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
f Of BC
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:32 PM
> To: spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] Greylisting wishes
>
>
> On 4/23/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I could do that if it would be useful. Now is the time
> for changes
> > l
On 4/23/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I could do that if it would be useful. Now is the time for changes
> like
> this, since version 4.0 won't be backwards compatible anyway. What
> about changing the log message for other reasons too? For example,
> ALLOWED_WHITELISTED_IP, ALLOWED_WHI
I think this would be very useful!
Please do so.
Regards
Arne
Sam Clippinger schrieb:
> I could do that if it would be useful. Now is the time for changes like
> this, since version 4.0 won't be backwards compatible anyway. What
> about changing the log message for other reasons too? For exa
I could do that if it would be useful. Now is the time for changes like
this, since version 4.0 won't be backwards compatible anyway. What
about changing the log message for other reasons too? For example,
ALLOWED_WHITELISTED_IP, ALLOWED_WHITELISTED_SENDER, etc.
-- Sam Clippinger
Marcin Orl
Sam Clippinger wrote:
> I'm planning to add that in a future version but not in 4.0.0. The list
> of changes for that version is already incredibly long and I've been
> trying to finish testing it for the last month or two. I have no idea
> how long the documentation updates are going to take.
I'm planning to add that in a future version but not in 4.0.0. The list
of changes for that version is already incredibly long and I've been
trying to finish testing it for the last month or two. I have no idea
how long the documentation updates are going to take.
Look for this in 4.1.0 or so
Sam Clippinger wrote:
> I've already made this change in version 4.0.0 -- it has a new flag to
> allow spamdyke to create domain folders itself. It can't be automatic
> because some sites need the ability to activate/deactivate graylisting
> for specific domains without affecting others.
what
I've already made this change in version 4.0.0 -- it has a new flag to
allow spamdyke to create domain folders itself. It can't be automatic
because some sites need the ability to activate/deactivate graylisting
for specific domains without affecting others.
-- Sam Clippinger
Marcin Orlowski
dnk wrote:
> I just added a line to create that directory.
> Works like a charm and enables my gray listing from the get go.
If you want all traffic graylisted this is simply unnecesary. If
spamdyke can create user dir it could domain too. One item
less to manage and keep eye on.
Marcin
___
Well what I did was create a shell script since i add all my new users
and domains at the command line on my toaster to set my default
quota's, etc.
I just added a line to create that directory.
Works like a charm and enables my gray listing from the get go.
dnk
On 22-Apr-08, at 11:31
Hi,
For graylisting to work in current version "the domain folders must be
created before graylisting will work. This is the most common mistake
when setting up spamdyke to perform graylisting". May I opt for a
feature to just make spamdyke graylist all the connections *without*
the need of the
26 matches
Mail list logo
