Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Thu, November 29, 2007 17:05, Tobias Kreidl wrote:
>
>> Our needs and hence our tables are simple and only take up a couple of
>> megabytes; we process several hundred thousand messages a day, so
>> efficiency is important.
>
> how many users sends size=0 in policy ?
>
st I've seen the throttle table grow to is perhaps
> 6,000 rows or so. Typically, it hits around 3,000 just before the
> cleanup process runs.
> Our needs and hence our tables are simple and only take up a couple of
> megabytes; we process several hundred thousand messages a day,
ROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Beaver
> Sent: 29 November 2007 15:49
> To: policyd-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [policyd-users] Throttle table becomes empty
>
> Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
>> Dear all, I have postfix-policyd in order
Alejandro Cabrera Obed wrote:
> Dear all, I have postfix-policyd in order to put a message size quota to
> my LAN users.
>
> I fill the THROTTLE table from the POSTFIXPOLICYD database with the
> users' mail and quota, that's OK and it works. But after a time, the
> throttle table becomes empty and
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:08:25AM -0500, John Beaver wrote:
>> I have a throttling instance and I have a greylisting/blacklisting
>> instance. In my case, each policyd instance is running with a different
>> configuration. Running a single cleanup
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
>> This is to remove old/stale data from the database so it doesn't get too
>
> Ok John... ¿and where (in time or in space) do you establish the limit?
> I'm thinking in the related cronjob...
policyd cleanup uses the policyd configuration to determine what needs
to
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure about the real utility of cleanup binary.
> ¿Why exactly?
This is to remove old/stale data from the database so it doesn't get too
large.
john
-
This SF.net email is s
Cami Sardinha wrote:
> Tobias Kreidl wrote:
>> If one is running multiple SMTP servers, is there any harm running
>> "cleanup" from each one
>> at the same time via a cron job, or is it better to stagger the times a bit?
>
> If all your SMTP servers are connecting to the SAME / SINGLE Policyd
> d
minutes just to be safe. Depending on the options used for
each one, you might be able to do it at the same time.
But, your still running it twice so I figured better safe than sorry.
John Beaver
-
This SF.net email is s
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
>> You have something in your config that is permitting the message BEFORE
>> policyd is called.
>
> Mmmm... maybe Amavisd-new ¿?¿?¿?
>
>> Send your current postconf -n again.
>> Just run postconf -n from the command line, not from a specific folder.
>> Your either
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
> After all, the same:
>
> Aug 28 17:57:26 mail policyd: starting policyd v1.81
> Aug 28 17:57:26 mail policyd: DEBUG: fd: 0: rlimit: max: 4097 cur: 4097
> Aug 28 17:57:26 mail policyd: connecting to mysql database: 127.0.0.1
> Aug 28 17:57:26 mail policyd: connected..
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Tue, August 28, 2007 12:26, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
>
>> That means that you're greylisting your sasl_authenticated users, which may
>> not be desirable (I suppose they are running Outlook and not an MTA).
>
> ups, policyd so need to stop greylistning sasl users
>
> no
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
> Benny Pedersen escribió:
>> On Tue, August 28, 2007 11:52, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
>>
>>> I want to use several features (greylisting, throttling...) but,
>>> obviosly, the main problem is I can test with it if policyd is not
>>> working fine.
>> smtpd_recipient_re
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
>> Note here your using permit_sasl_authenticated. A sasl authenticated
>> user will be permitted here and never reach the policy service. You
>> would need to move the policy check above the permit_sasl option.
>
> Ok, but it doesn't solve the problem. If I move th
licy check above the permit_sasl option.
John Beaver
>
> # SPAM controls
> maps_rbl_domains =
> sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
> proxies.relays.monkeys.com
> opm.blitzed.org
> blackholes.wirehub.net
> list.dsbl.org
> r
Fernando Schubert wrote:
> Hi everybody!
>
> I`m facing a problem with SENDERTHROTTLE
> I use it to enforce quota in a small mail cluster (8 servers)
> environment. I have large traffic and I`m encountering some problems
> with throttling.
> My defaults are 1000 mails or 40Mb of data in 24 hours
Sloan wrote:
> John Beaver wrote:
>> Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Guys,
>>>
>>> My policyd is being called on smtpd_recipient_restrictions for
>>> greylist and some other features. My smtpd_
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
> Hello Guys,
>
> My policyd is being called on smtpd_recipient_restrictions for
> greylist and some other features. My smtpd_recipient_restrictions is
> configured like this:
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
> reject_unknown_recipient_domai
alled for your users mail (thus not working).
Try this:
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/postfix/access
check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:10031
permit_mynetworks
reject_unauth_destination
John Beaver
> John Beaver wrote:
>> Alejand
l mail accounts and I
> have not my virtual mail acounts I have set up, they dissapeared.
This will be the case because all mail coming in will also pass through
the policyd server. You can avoid this by selectively calling the
policyd server based on sender, or by using a separate insta
Juan Pablo Bagnon wrote:
> >> thanks for the tip.
>> > i'm in the middle of that, throttling not working as expected.
>> >
>> > i dont know what im doing wrong
>>
>> post postconf -n for each instance of postfix
>> post logs
>>
>>
>>
> oh jesus, dont know how to say this:
>
> SENDERTHROTTLE=1
>
ay_recipient.map,
proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/policyd_spamtrap_alias_maps.cf
where /etc/postfix/policyd_spamtrap_alias_maps.cf has...
user = dbuser
password = dbpasswd
hosts = localhost
dbname = policyd
query = SELECT CONCAT('[EMAIL PROTECTED]') FROM spamtrap WHERE
_rcpt='%s' AND _active='1
Juan Pablo Bagnon wrote:
>>
>>
>> > what im doing wrong?
>> > is it needed 2 postfix instances or just 2 calls to 2 diff policyd
>> > instances, one on smtp_client_restrictions and the other in
>> > smtp_recipient_restrictions?
>>
>> You best bet is to run 2 instances of policyd
>> Instance 1 - gre
Juan Pablo Bagnon wrote:
> i need to control de message rate hitting my content filter server (CFS).
>
> i have installed 2 instances of postfix
>
> 1- recipient check, greylisting and holding mail
> 2- throttling to the content filter server.
>
> i have followed the README file.
> i have insert
ntire log for the two test messages.
Are you running multiple postfix instances (postfix, postfix-policyd)?
If so, also show the postconf -n for each instance.
john
> - Original message -
> From: "John Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: polic
Matt Beckman wrote:
> I installed policyd on Postfix yesterday, and in order to configure
> throttling, I have changed the settings to only allow 1 message from
> a host every 2 minutes. During tests I would send out three emails,
> and I would expect the first to be sent right away, followed by th
Joe Lanager wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback on Spamtrap's effectiveness. If we do decide to
> turn the feature on however, does anyone have any suggestions on
> configuring it? For example, we have an additional registered domain
> that's never been used for e-mail but if we throw up an MX recor
Joe Lanager wrote:
> We currently use Policyd just for greylisting but we're thinking of
> implementing Spamtrap so I just had some general questions. Is anyone
> currently using this feature and if so has it been very effective?
In my case it was not effective. After running a low volume site
sed to store the message instance ID. Policyd may be
called several times for the same message and the instanceID allows
policyd to count the messages correctly.
> - What effect does whitelisting have on throttles? Does a message that
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have been looking at policyd for some time, and I am planning to use
> policyd on an outgoing SMTP-server in our network. The main problem we
> have is hijacked hosts from within our network causing uncontrollable
> flooding of spam, worstcase causi
jibie wrote:
> Is there any way to activate both sender throttling by from address and
> ip address?
>
> The reason I ask, is that I wanted to use policyd on an incoming mail
> gateway machine, which from time to time, gets a sudden burst of email
> from spammers, which i hoped to block with s
Jordan Tardif wrote:
> That was the 2nd email i sent and that sample is from version 1.73 not
> 1.80 .. this is from 1.80 .. quota was only at 73% at its highest.. you
> can see that it clearly rejects one of the emails and then keeps counting
> where it left off..
>
>
> size=289/4096, qu
> None has any information on this? It seems like a pretty big bug with
the
> new version. This has been tested multiple times , is there some
change to
> the db structure from 1.73 to the latestest version that would cause
this?
Your log below show a limit on RCPT has been reached (200).
A
Show the logs where this happens.
>
> On 5/10/07, John Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> binoy wrote:
>>> On 5/10/07, David DeFranco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Try removing "reject_unlisted_recipient" from your config.
>>>&
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> rcpt=1, greylist=update, host=12.64.95.73
> (frndsatwork.domain.net.frndsatwork.domain.ne), [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], size=0
> DEBUG: fd: 4 select(): fd 4 is ready for write
> DEBUG: fd: 4 returning after 14 bytes of data written
> =
wed to send by the permit_mynetworks.
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
reject_unauth_destination
reject_unlisted_recipient
check_policy_service inet:127.0.0.1:10031
permit_mynetworks
john beaver
-
This SF.net emai
:10031
> also for sendmail send mails.
Submitting via sendmail is different that using SMTP. Meaning, locally
submitted mail using sendmail doesn't pass through the same restrictions
as mail coming in though SMTP.
Is there a SMTP module av
.0.0.1:10031,
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject
>
> John Beaver wrote:
>> Clearcable Networks - Mike D. wrote:
>>
>>> Good Afternoon,
>>>
>>> We recently implemented policyd on our MX servers, which also handle
>>> outbound SMTP for clients.
Internet).
For example, I don't want to scan for spam on mail my users send, but I
do scan on incoming messages. Same thing for policyd. I use one
instance configured for throttling on my outgoing instance, and I use a
second instance configured for greylis
ssage.php?msg_id=15443569
Here is the thread for all the gory details.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=10164566&forum_id=46105
> will postfix "lie" then about the mail-size ?
>
> problem with postf
w logs and your config that would show where
policyd was being called.
Read through these archives to see if it helps.
John Beaver
Check out this message for a solution for sender based quota's.
http://sourceforge.net/mailar
Jon Duggan wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> _count_tot in the throttle table is this value reset with the cleanup
> scripts or is it a count of *total* emails sent by user?
It is a total count of the emails and is not cleared or reset by cleanup.
Tom Scrape wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [policyd-users] Disable spamtrap blacklisting when
>> sender is null?
>>> If Postfix is just getting a DUNNO, that would be what I
>> want since I
>>> have several more spam checks after policyd. But if it's
>> getting an
>>> OK, that would break any further spam
> On Jan 7, 2007, at 7:49 PM, Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
>>
>> Hi Cami,
>>
>> I'm rewatching my logfiles and rebuilding my whitelist and blacklist
>> dnsnames entries.
>>
>> While i was doing that, i was thinking of maybe an easy way of
>> monitoring policyd accept/blo
Daniel Mayer [COUGA.net] wrote:
> On Behalf Of Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães
>> Daniel Mayer [COUGA.net] escreveu:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We are running postfix in an ISP mass-webhosting environment with
>>> several customers per server. We'd like to limit the amount of
>>> mail a user is allowed to se
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães wrote:
>
> Daniel Mayer [COUGA.net] escreveu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are running postfix in an ISP mass-webhosting environment with
>> several customers per server. We'd like to limit the amount of mail a
>> user is allowed to send from its web pages (like php, cgi scripts et
Robert A. Pickering Jr. wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I think it's a great idea as many ISPs use multiple servers. I'm a
> little unclear however. Do you *always* take the last two domain
> portions? So in the event of international domains like:
> mx.someserver.com.uk. Would you just take com.uk
Benyes Krisztián wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In my case I did the following:
>
> I have a real-time "unknown users" collector which gains those mail-
> address attempts that do not exist on my system (and never existed!)
> but spammers try to deliver like [EMAIL PROTECTED] /
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL P
Rob Shepherd wrote:
> Policyd doesn't compile on Solaris 10.
>
> neither of these exist...
>
> MSG_NOSIGNAL
> SO_NOSIGPIPE
>
> I'm not sure what to suggest, however i'm willing to assist debuggering
> this further.
Try this change in policyd.h
Current:
#if defined (__FreeBSD__) || defined (__
49 matches
Mail list logo
