Milter-greylist

Elrond wrote:
> --- In milter-greylist@yahoogroups.com, Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu@n...>
> wrote:
>
>>I feel the smell of bloatware :-)
>
>
> Exactly, what I smelled...
>
> I hear, there's mime-defang for doing this sort of stuff.
> Anyone used it?

Yes, but MIMEDefang is singethreaded perl with a C-multiplexor. The
memoryfootprint is huge comapred to C, and a milter that only parses
acls for blacklisting will be puny, since it will only use the smfi_helo
callback and the acl-parsing routines.

>
>
>>What are the benefit of having both functionnalities in the same milter?
>
>
> I rather see the problem here:
>
> Currently milter-greylist can only delay mails, but never "kill" them.
> That's good after all.
> Adding the possiblity of blacklisting opens it up to "Hey! Was it
> milter-greylist, which killed my valid mail?!". Now you can simply say
> "No, there's no way for it to permanently reject mail. it will only
> temporarilry reject it. And you should have gotten a warning, if it
> did so for too long."

I would agree. I wrote a milter in C for using amavisd and spamd and
some other stuff and I can't recommend feature bloat. The project died
due to inflexibility of C, and we now use said MIMEDefang.

Also, if a milter fails, it is easy to determine why if the milter only
does one thing.

So I would recommend small milters in C or bloatware in some other
language or framework.

CPU and memory will tend to get cheaper, your labor will (hopefully) not.

My two cents.

Cheers,
Fredrik Nyberg