Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Current TODO list

[Lionel B. <lio...@bo...>]

Farkas Levente wrote the following on 12/15/04 10:39 :

>
> imho it'd be better to leave spf for another policy daemon (and there 
> are exist many good one). a greylist server should have to be only a 
> greylist server no more no less! i can repeat only two phrases:
> - simplicity, generality, clarity!
> - a program is not ready when there is no more think to add, it's 
> ready when there is nothing to remove!


I agree on the principle. But here's the idea : if a domain uses SPF in 
a way that makes a connection authorized or forbidden it can help the 
decision process :
- connection forbidded : don't try to greylist. This can be done at the 
Postfix level by chaining policy daemons,
- connection authorized : you have 2 options, trust the domain admins 
and don't greylist or add your verification level by greylisting. I 
wonder if it's easy to configure in Postfix or even doable.
- SPF can't help us (no record applying to the connection) : we want to 
greylist.

I'm not yet fluent enough in Postfix configuration to write an HOWTO 
detailing how to configure it properly when using a separate SPF policy 
daemon. This is why the word "experiment" is used and this is left to do 
in development versions...

>
> just my 2c:-)
>

Don't worry, if it's simple to separate SPF and greylisting by 
configuring Postfix properly, I'll probably develop a pure SPF policy 
daemon or reuse one that fits our needs and write an howto for combining 
them. The goal is to have *optional* SPF support.

Best regards,

Lionel.