Re: newer check_spamhelo (was Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo)

2004-06-17 Thread Peter Eisch
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Devin Carraway) ... I've seen excite.com also, so you might consider adding that. I had excite in my badhelo list until last week when I fielded a user complaint. They may be legit (as in, I took it out of the list and the complaint went away -- I didn't actually

Re: newer still check_spamhelo (was Re: newer check_spamhelo (was Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo))

2004-06-15 Thread Devin Carraway
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 04:04:23PM +0100, Mark Powell wrote: Here is the latest check_spamhelo that surrounds each regexp, with simply '^' '$'. Slashes are not needed to surround a regexp anymore. See the attached badhelo for some examples. Excellent, much cleaner. Passing the argument

Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo

2004-06-13 Thread Ask Bjørn Hansen
On Jun 13, 2004, at 1:38 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: It requires a core patch. I wonder if a new return code might not be useful here, so you could do: return CUSTOM, 501, Syntax error in EHLO argument; Ask - any thoughts on that? DECLINED / OK / ... has other meanings than just what we return to

Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo

2004-06-13 Thread Matt Sergeant
On 13 Jun 2004, at 11:48, Hanno Hecker wrote: In addtition you could also add an alias for RFC errors at the end of Qpsmtpd::Constants: use constant RFC_ERROR = (DENY, 501); So plugin writers can just write return(RFC_ERROR, Syntax error in HELO argument); Unfortunately perl's constants are

Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo

2004-06-13 Thread Matt Sergeant
On 13 Jun 2004, at 09:45, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: I think I'd rather see an extension so if the second part of the return result is a three digit number we'll pass that back as the code and use the third part as the message. Does that make sense? Yes. Matt.

Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo

2004-06-13 Thread Devin Carraway
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 01:45:15AM -0700, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote: It requires a core patch. I wonder if a new return code might not be useful here, so you could do: return CUSTOM, 501, Syntax error in EHLO argument; Ask - any thoughts on that? DECLINED / OK / ... has other meanings

newer check_spamhelo (was Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo)

2004-06-13 Thread Mark Powell
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Matt Sergeant wrote: I do a lot of regexp matching from my custom HELO plugin here. There's no escaping to be done - this is all I do: foreach my $re ($self-qp-config('bad_helo_re')) { if ($hello =~ /^$re/i) { $self-log(LOGDEBUG, HELO $hello is bad

Re: newer check_spamhelo (was Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo)

2004-06-13 Thread Keith C. Ivey
Mark Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Attached is a newer version of the plugin. Each line in badhelo is a regexp. If the regexp is enclosed in '/' chars then it is used as is, giving total freedom, otherwise an implied prefix of '^' and a post-fix of '.?$' are added before processing. It

RFC: new check_spamhelo

2004-06-12 Thread Mark Powell
Hi, Attached are some changes I made to check_spamhelo today. I wanted the plugin to do a little more in dropping those conversations from external sites that have HELO's which forge hosts, domains, and IP addresses. It provides wildcards in badhelo so you can block HELO arguments pretending

Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo

2004-06-12 Thread Devin Carraway
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:52:31AM +0100, Mark Powell wrote: Attached are some changes I made to check_spamhelo today. I wanted the plugin to do a little more in dropping those conversations from external sites that have HELO's which forge hosts, domains, and IP addresses. It provides

Re: RFC: new check_spamhelo

2004-06-12 Thread Mark Powell
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Devin Carraway wrote: On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:52:31AM +0100, Mark Powell wrote: Attached are some changes I made to check_spamhelo today. I wanted the plugin to do a little more in dropping those conversations from external sites that have HELO's which forge