Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2004-06-23 by David Gibbs
... because it really isn't a 'test' mode (although it certainly can be used for testing). I will probably never take greylist-milter out of 'testmode' because I only want to apply it to a relatively small number of users. 90% of my addresses won't use it. Perhaps it could be called 'selective' mode? david
2004-06-23 by manu@netbsd.org
David Gibbs <david@...> wrote: > ... because it really isn't a 'test' mode (although it certainly can be > used for testing). Yes, I've been thinking this too for a while. We'll retain "testmode" for backward compatibility, but a an alias that better describe what is is would be nice. > I will probably never take greylist-milter out of 'testmode' because I > only want to apply it to a relatively small number of users. 90% of my > addresses won't use it. > > Perhaps it could be called 'selective' mode? Non-selective mode is also selective... restricted mode? limited mode? members-only mode? private-club mode? :) another idea? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus Il y a 10 sortes de personnes dans le monde: ceux qui comprennent le binaire et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas. manu@...
2004-06-23 by Cyril Guibourg
manu@... writes: > another idea? Happy fews mode ;-)
2004-06-23 by attila.bruncsak@itu.int
> another idea? non-wildcard mode. As for the sendmail config. I am using the milter-greylist in production with -T flag like many others do. Who wants to wear the cost of the maintenance of a greylist entry for a non-existent e-mail address? Bests, Attila
2004-06-23 by David Gibbs
manu@... wrote: > Non-selective mode is also selective... Well, it's positively selective instead of negatively selective. > limited mode? That works ... although it kind of implies that the function is being limited, not the users it's applied to. > members-only mode? Sounds like you're filtering a fad jacket :) (am I showing my grey?) david
2004-06-23 by Graham Dunn
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:02:01PM +0200, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote: > > Non-selective mode is also selective... > > restricted mode? > limited mode? > members-only mode? > private-club mode? :) > another idea? intersection mode? (where A and B are the set of all users and the set of users in greylist.conf, respectively, -T greylists the set resulting from the intersection of A and B) (I guess you'd need to refer to normal mode as "complement mode", as "no -T" is the set resulting from the intersection of A and B\ufffd) Graham
2004-06-30 by David Gibbs
I upgraded to sendmail 8.13 ... and I just noticed that I'm getting the
following error in my logs ...
Jun 29 20:13:11 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
Any ideas?
david
--
Truth is what stands the test of experience.
-Albert Einstein2004-06-30 by manu@netbsd.org
David Gibbs <david@...> wrote:
> Jun 29 20:13:11 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
Do you export if_addr in sendmail.cf?
What version of milter-greylist do you run?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
Il y a 10 sortes de personnes dans le monde: ceux qui comprennent
le binaire et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas.
manu@...2004-06-30 by David Gibbs
manu@... wrote:
> David Gibbs <david@...> wrote:
>
> > Jun 29 20:13:11 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
>
> Do you export if_addr in sendmail.cf?
> What version of milter-greylist do you run?
milter-greylist 1.5.2
I've got the following macro definitions in my sendmail.mc ...
define(`confMILTER_MACROS_CONNECT', `j, {if_addr}')
define(`confMILTER_MACROS_HELO', `{verify}, {cert_subject}')
define(`confMILTER_MACROS_ENVFROM', `i, {auth_authen}')
david2004-06-30 by Emmanuel Dreyfus
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 10:13:25AM -0500, David Gibbs wrote:
> > > Jun 29 20:13:11 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
> milter-greylist 1.5.2
(snip)
> define(`confMILTER_MACROS_CONNECT', `j, {if_addr}')
> define(`confMILTER_MACROS_HELO', `{verify}, {cert_subject}')
> define(`confMILTER_MACROS_ENVFROM', `i, {auth_authen}')
Where is the message comming from? Submitted locally?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
manu@...2004-06-30 by David Gibbs
Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> > > > Jun 29 20:13:11 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
> > milter-greylist 1.5.2
> (snip)
> > define(`confMILTER_MACROS_CONNECT', `j, {if_addr}')
> > define(`confMILTER_MACROS_HELO', `{verify}, {cert_subject}')
> > define(`confMILTER_MACROS_ENVFROM', `i, {auth_authen}')
> Where is the message comming from? Submitted locally?
I can't tell for sure ... although it *APPEARS* to be coming from
localhost ...
Jun 29 18:36:02 linux sm-mta[3115]: i5TNa2Y3003115:
from=<root@...>, size=663, class=0, nrcpts=1,
msgid=<200406292336.i5TNa1sr003074@...>, proto=ESMTP,
daemon=local, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1]
Jun 29 18:36:02 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
Jun 29 18:36:02 linux sendmail[3074]: i5TNa1sr003074: to=root,
ctladdr=root (0/0), delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay,
pri=30387, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent
(i5TNa2Y3003115 Message accepted for delivery)
Jun 29 18:36:02 linux spamd[15706]: connection from localhost
[127.0.0.1] at port 46325
david2004-06-30 by manu@netbsd.org
David Gibbs <david@...> wrote:
> I can't tell for sure ... although it *APPEARS* to be coming from
> localhost ...
>
> Jun 29 18:36:02 linux sm-mta[3115]: i5TNa2Y3003115:
> from=<root@...>, size=663, class=0, nrcpts=1,
> msgid=<200406292336.i5TNa1sr003074@...>, proto=ESMTP,
> daemon=local, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1]
>
> Jun 29 18:36:02 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
That's probably the explanation: if it's submitted on sendmail's stdin,
there is no sender address.
Apart from the warning, it doesn't cause anything to fail, right?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
Il y a 10 sortes de personnes dans le monde: ceux qui comprennent
le binaire et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas.
manu@...2004-06-30 by David Gibbs
manu@... wrote:
> > I can't tell for sure ... although it *APPEARS* to be coming from
> > localhost ...
> > Jun 29 18:36:02 linux milter-greylist: smfi_getsymval failed for {if_addr}
> That's probably the explanation: if it's submitted on sendmail's stdin,
> there is no sender address.
> Apart from the warning, it doesn't cause anything to fail, right?
Correct. It's just annoying :)
david2004-06-30 by manu@netbsd.org
David Gibbs <david@...> wrote: > > Apart from the warning, it doesn't cause anything to fail, right? > Correct. It's just annoying :) This is open source: remove the warning and rebuild :) -- Emmanuel Dreyfus Il y a 10 sortes de personnes dans le monde: ceux qui comprennent le binaire et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas. manu@...