Re: [Sqlgrey-users] warn_if_reject to populate the db

[Michel B. <mi...@bo...>]

Le Mardi 28 Juin 2005 16:05, Lionel Bouton a =E9crit :
>
> Combining results of various checks at the Postfix level is rather
> cumbersome.

I wouldn't say "cumbersome", I would say "flexible". It allows you to=20
configure exactly what you want, how you want it, with the tools of your=20
choice.

SPF and greylisting have nothing to do together. If you first integrate S=
PF=20
into SQLgrey, then why not integrate DNSBLs as well ? Then RHBLs... And=20
then...

Furthermore, my current traffic show that SPF actually stops very _little=
_=20
mail, so its efficiency is still very marginal, compared to greylisting t=
hat=20
stops the vast majority of junk...

> This is why I added a reference to SPF in my TODO: my idea=20
> was that it wouldn't bring much benefit to greylist already known good
> MTAs.

SPF doesn't define any "good" MTA by itself. It only lists "domain-approv=
ed"=20
MTAs. If spammerdomain.com defines spammermachine as authorized for the=20
domain, then it's OK for SPF. Mr. Joe Spammer can also put a "+all" SPF=20
record for his spammerdomain.com, and then any open proxy out there will =
be=20
"SPF approved" for relaying his spam...

> We could combine a domain whitelist with SPF checks: if the source=20
> domain is in the whitelist and the SPF checks are OK, don't greylist.

Yes, it can be useful in this way _only_ with a manual whitelist. But why=
=20
bother, as the greylisting system will create its AWL automatically with =
much=20
less effort than having to maintain a manual WL ?

--=20
Michel Bouissou <mi...@bo...> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E