Re: [spamdyke-users] whitelist questions

2007-09-20 Thread Paulo Henrique
You could use an archive in the style of simcontrol, creating options as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: rdns=yes, graylist=no, chk_mx=no… : rdns=y, graylist=yes, chk_mx=yes… I believe that this can decide the problem. 2007/9/19, Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If you put an IP address in the never-

Re: [spamdyke-users] whitelist questions

2007-09-20 Thread Sam Clippinger
I've considered something like that. Unfortunately, it's very inefficient. On my system, where I have less than 100 users, I could easily create one file for all my users and suffer no performance issues. However, on a system with thousands or tens of thousands of users, the file will become

Re: [spamdyke-users] whitelist questions

2007-09-20 Thread Paulo Henrique
The disk access is very slow in compared with memory (ram) access. In the file of options per user, there is only users with specific options, the default option is only 1 line where the admin can manipulate default actions. I'm not programmer, but believe to look for lines in file with 1 line

Re: [spamdyke-users] whitelist questions

2007-09-20 Thread John Barton
What about interfacing with sqlite, an embedded relational database. That should give you the performance and flexibility you would require. -John Sam Clippinger wrote: > I've considered something like that. Unfortunately, it's very > inefficient. On my system, where I have less than 100 users,

Re: [spamdyke-users] whitelist questions

2007-09-20 Thread Sam Clippinger
I agree, memory access is much faster than disk access. However, remember how spamdyke runs. There is no spamdyke daemon to load the configuration file once, parse it once and use it multiple times. Instead, a new instance of spamdyke is started for every incoming SMTP connection. That means

Re: [spamdyke-users] whitelist questions

2007-09-20 Thread Paulo Henrique
You are correct. tks. 2007/9/20, Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I agree, memory access is much faster than disk access. However, > remember how spamdyke runs. There is no spamdyke daemon to load the > configuration file once, parse it once and use it multiple times. > Instead, a new inst

Re: [spamdyke-users] whitelist questions

2007-09-20 Thread Sam Clippinger
That's a good idea and it's one I've heard before. MySQL and CDB files have also been suggested. I have several concerns about all of them: 1) Speed. Because spamdyke doesn't run as a daemon, a database engine must be loaded and initialized for every incoming connection. That takes time, s

Re: [spamdyke-users] spamdyke-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 21

2007-09-20 Thread BC
On 9/20/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The disk access is very slow in compared with memory (ram) access. > > In the file of options per user, there is only users with specific > options, the default option is only 1 line where the admin can > manipulate default actions. > I'm not programmer

Re: [spamdyke-users] spamdyke-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 21

2007-09-20 Thread Sam Clippinger
Unfortunately that's not really possible here because spamdyke is not a daemon -- a new copy of spamdyke is started (by tcpserver or xinetd) for each incoming connection. When each new copy is started, it must start from scratch to read and parse its configuration. I'd like to change that in a

[spamdyke-users] SMTP Auth Problem.

2007-09-20 Thread Hikmet Gümüş
I use Plesk and QMAIL. Plesk's qmail has an SMTP AUTH. But i can't run spamdyke with auth. /var/qmail/bin/passwordcheck -u mailaddress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -p password /var/qmail/bin/smtp_auth /var/qmail/bin/true Beginning unencrypted password test. Sending data to child process: mailaddress\0pas

Re: [spamdyke-users] SMTP Auth Problem.

2007-09-20 Thread Sam Clippinger
With the latest version of spamdyke, the "smtp-auth-command" flag is unnecessary. If qmail already provides SMTP AUTH, spamdyke will honor the authentications automatically. Try these starting arguments: -Rt0 /usr/local/bin/spamdyke -x dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net -x dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net -

Re: [spamdyke-users] spamdyke-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 21

2007-09-20 Thread Paulo Henrique
I thought about using only one daemon that he would function as a porter of configurations, keeping tcpserver. The processes of spamdyke would have to consult this daemon and would receive the answers from it. 2007/9/20, Sam Clippinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Unfortunately that's not really