On Monday, Jun 19th 2006 at 10:24 -0700, quoth Bill Landry: =>----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven W. Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> => =>> On Monday, Jun 19th 2006 at 11:40 -0400, quoth Chris Santerre: =>> =>> => =>> => =>> =>> -----Original Message----- =>> =>> From: Steven W. Orr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =>> =>> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:08 AM =>> =>> To: spamassassin-users =>> =>> Subject: Can SA be used to implement greylisting? =>> =>> =>> =>> =>> =>> I'm running sendmail here on a home server. I've been looking =>> =>> for a good =>> =>> greylist package and I frankly have not found one. There are =>> =>> a couple out =>> =>> there but they work in memory and don't maintain their tables in a =>> =>> database. =>> => =>> =>grey.uribl.com ??? =>> => =>> =>> I'm also running spamass-milter which is set to reject mail =>> =>> ifd SA says =>> =>> it's spam. Is it worthwhile to try to convince the SA dev =>> =>> crowd to add =>> =>> greylist functionality? I know it would be easy to modify =>> =>> spamass-milter =>> =>> to return the needed info to sendmail. It would require a new table. =>> =>> =>> =>> Does this make sense? =>> => =>> =>Not really. Are you talking about greylisting as in a greet pause, or a =>> =>"This is a spamish domain."? =>> => =>> =>Greet pause would be used in Sendmail. grey.uribl.com would be used for =>> the =>> =>later. =>> => =>> =>http://www.uribl.com/usage.shtml =>> =>> Neither. What I'm looking for is a rubust way to say: "I haven't seen mail =>> from this guy before so I'm going to reject his email with a 450 error =>> code. If email from him tries for delivery after (let's say) four =>> hours, then I will accept it and nevermore will this guy have a delay in =>> sending me mail." =>> =>> It's not a spam identifying technique but it does eliminate about 90% of =>> the spam. The question is, is this worthwhile exploring as adjunct =>> functionality to SA? =>> =>> Yes, I understand that SA does not have any ability to reject mail, much =>> less specify an SMTP error code. Is this clearly out of bounds for what SA =>> should be doing? => =>Yes, this has to happen before SA gets the message, as SA works on messages =>after they have been fully received. Greylisting needs to happen at the MTA =>level, before the message is received. Depending on what MTA you are using, =>most support greylisting plug-ins. => =>Bill
And this is my point. SA *DOESN'T* work on messages after they have been received. Since I use spamass-milter, SA sees the messages before reception is completed. (You're free to do otherwise.) Then when SA decides that the message doesn't conform to its high standards, the report of that fact goes back to spamass-milter which then returns status back to sendmail. The current result is a reject 5xx status. So all we need is for SA to manage one extra table and to allow some sort of reportage that spamass-milter could be mucked to understand. Is this making sense? -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net
