Re: proposed postfix changes

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Jeff Waugh <jdub bethesignal org> wrote:
> All of the rules are in smtp_recipient_restrictions because there's no point
> duplicating (or having separate rules) for each step, and *just* in case you
> annoy a stupid client which can't handle errors early in the conversation.

I understand your point here. In my setups I do prefer to use
'smtpd_delay_reject = no', and filter at each step. In that case I
don't think the rule duplication at each step is a waste. As I said, I
prefer not to waste any more time/cpu on these connections. While I
haven't had issues with "stupid clients" (so far), I can understand
the potential for concern. I agree that it might be best to limit
restrictions at recipient only as we have been doing. I wont make any
changes to the current setup in that regard.

> Although most of these are already represented in the configuration, adding
> postgrey (with a short timeout) might be handy... especially once everyone
> we care about is automagically white-listed. :-)

Two questions.

1) What do we consider a "short timeout" to be? Should I assume
"short" means "shorter than the default"?
2) How would you like to define "everyone we care about"? I've
generally let postgrey do it's thing and develop its whitelist
naturally. If we need to manually generate a whitelist first I'd like
to understand those requirements.. and that is going to take some

Christer Edwards

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]