sqlgrey-users — Users of SQLgrey

[Sqlgrey-users] Daemon Dying

[Jeff G. <je...@st...>]

My Sqlgrey daemon died last night and all of my mail was temp failed.  
What do people recommend for making sure the daemon stays running?  Is 
there a watchdog type program I can run to verify it is running, and if 
not, it will automatically restart it for me?

Thanks,
Jeff

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

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

Karl O. Pinc a écrit, le 04/20/2009 04:07 PM :
>
>> There is that general advantage of using proven, maintained code vs
>> writing
>> an application-specific one. If the Perl modules gets a bug fix, so
>> will
>> your application that depends on it.
>>     
>
> This makes sense to me.  Reinventing the wheel to keep down
> dependencies seems counterproductive in today's world of modern
> package management systems.
>   

I've seen many posts arguing for and against using Net::CIDR, but I'm
still wondering for which part of SQLgrey people want to use it. Anyone
can show code in the existing 1.7 branch that would benefit from
Net::CIDR and how?

Lionel

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Karl O. P. <ko...@me...>]

On 04/20/2009 06:36:18 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:

> > So -- what do we get from Net::CIDR that we can't have without? The
> > point is that sqlgrey shouldn't have unneeded dependencies that only
> > make the installation more difficult.

> There is that general advantage of using proven, maintained code vs
> writing
> an application-specific one. If the Perl modules gets a bug fix, so
> will
> your application that depends on it.

This makes sense to me.  Reinventing the wheel to keep down
dependencies seems counterproductive in today's world of modern
package management systems.


Karl <ko...@me...>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Patrick V. W. <pa...@va...>]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:25:49 +1200, Michal Ludvig <ml...@lo...>
wrote:
> Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> 
>> I used Net::CIDR if it was there, otherwise I stuck with the
>> existing code
> 
> Aha. In that case the non-Net::CIDR implementation of IPv6 handling
> should be fixed anyway, shouldn't it ;-)
> 
> And once everything works without Net::CIDR there's little point adding
> a dependency on another nonstandard module. Unless it brings features
> not available otherwise of course.
> 
> So -- what do we get from Net::CIDR that we can't have without? The
> point is that sqlgrey shouldn't have unneeded dependencies that only
> make the installation more difficult.

I can see several advantages in using Net::CIDR, beyond the cidrvalidate
functionality.

There is that general advantage of using proven, maintained code vs writing
an application-specific one. If the Perl modules gets a bug fix, so will
your application that depends on it.

Another advantage is regarding the clients_ip_whitelist file and table.
Right now, the read_an_ip_whitelist function only accepts IPv4 ranges that
are either /24 or /32 (or more precisely 3 or 4 octet addresses). This is
kind of broken by today's standards, where mail server farms can sometimes
be spread over /16s. 

With the cidr_lookup function from Net::CIDR, SQLGrey would be able to
process not only to list IPv6 ranges, but also have more flexibility
regarding  prefixes, both for IPv4 and IPv6. One could have specific
prefixes for each IP address range.  This would require to re-write a
number of functions, though. 

As a side note, I kind of solved the latter issue by storing everything in
a Postgresql table which uses the Postgresql cidr data type and adding a
function to SQLGrey to query that table. It is neither clean code nor is it
portable to MySQL or SQLite, because they do not have a similar data type.
Hence, I have not posted it here, but I can send it off-list to whoever is
interested.

Patrick Vande Walle


 

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Michal L. <ml...@lo...>]

Bob Apthorpe wrote:

> I used Net::CIDR if it was there, otherwise I stuck with the
> existing code

Aha. In that case the non-Net::CIDR implementation of IPv6 handling
should be fixed anyway, shouldn't it ;-)

And once everything works without Net::CIDR there's little point adding
a dependency on another nonstandard module. Unless it brings features
not available otherwise of course.

So -- what do we get from Net::CIDR that we can't have without? The
point is that sqlgrey shouldn't have unneeded dependencies that only
make the installation more difficult.

Michal

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Bob A. <apt...@cy...>]

Hi,

Dan Faerch wrote:

> Did you add other features, besides the Net::CIDR stuff? Then drop us a 
> list, so each suggested addition can be discussed here. Usually 
> everybody here has an opinion :). (which is good).

Honestly, I don't recall. If timestamps are to be believed, I last
messed with the code in late 2006.

> Patches should be made against current CVS version. (not a perl-tidy'et 
> version ;)). If the patches are small and simple, its way easier to get 
> me to add them. (because a major restructuring of the code would take me 
> forever to verify and.. Well.. Yes i am that lazy ;)).

Yeah, that was sort of the problem. I tidied the code so I could
understand it well enough to refactor it. By doing so, I made it
impossible to diff in order to submit a patch. It's sad that a little
white space can screw one over so badly, but that's life. So I posted my
 mangled version of the code so the changes were available, if not
integrated with the canonical source.

If the Net::CIDR addition is vital, I'll see what I can extract from my
hack and incorporate into the current non-tidied CVS version of sqlgrey
(the changes look small.) No point in letting the work go to waste, even
if I don't remember any of it :)

Also, FWIW, I used a tiny bit of eval() trickery to check if Net::CIDR
was available (also checked for Time::HiRes and Sys::Hostname the same
way.) I used Net::CIDR if it was there, otherwise I stuck with the
existing code to avoid screwing people who upgraded without knowing that
dependencies had changed.

My big picture goal was to split the code into a small driver script and
a module (potentially Mail::Postfix::Policy::Sqlgrey, inheriting from
Net::Server::Multiplex.) IIRC, the big sticking point involved a
self-reference passed to signal handlers in pre_loop_hook(). My OO-fu
was not sufficient for sorting out how to resolve that scoping issue.

-- Bob

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Bob A. <apt...@cy...>]

Hi,

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> Karl O. Pinc wrote, On 10/4/09 15:30:
>> On 04/10/2009 07:23:41 AM, Dan Faerch wrote:
>> 
>>> Michal Ludvig wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well there is one thing - IPv6 handling is still a problem.
>>>> 
>>> I cant check the patch, since im not "IPv6 ready" yet. I have no
>>>  servers running ipv6 and nor experience with it.
>>> 
>>> I no one objects, ill add it to CVS within the next couple of
>>> days.
>>> 
>> It can't be any more broken than it is now. ;-)
>> 
> Indeed. This is why I use the IPv6 code included in this fork: 
> http://apthorpe.cynistar.net/code/sqlgrey/
> 
> It is based on the Net::CIDR module, which makes parsing IPv4 and
> IPv6 addresses much more reliable and easy.
> 
> I receive quite a lot of e-mail delivered over IPv6 and can testify
> it works fine.

Wow - I had no idea anyone was using that; it's less of a fork than just
a reformat and refactoring with perltidy, perlcritic, etc. My guess is
that I added Net::CIDR because I knew someone else had solved the
netblock decipherment issue and I'm all about fobbing code maintenance
off on others ;)

I'm not actively using sqlgrey but I'm willing to revisit my version and
help port useful features into the official (and maintained) version of
the code.

Anymore I'm pretty religious about using perltidy & perlcritic but not
out of slavish adherence to dogma. It's mostly because I'm too lazy to
pay attention to coding style and formatting. This way I can just hack,
fix the perlcritic warnings, and filter the code through perltidy so it
looks sane & standardized. If people don't like it, they can argue with
Damian Conway :)

-- Bob

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Patrick V. W. <pa...@va...>]

Karl O. Pinc wrote, On 10/4/09 15:30:
> On 04/10/2009 07:23:41 AM, Dan Faerch wrote:
>   
>> Michal Ludvig wrote:
>>     
>>> Well there is one thing - IPv6 handling is still a problem.
>>>       
>> I cant check the patch, since im not "IPv6 ready" yet. I have no  
>> servers running ipv6 and nor experience with it.
>>     
>> I no one objects, ill add it to CVS within the next couple of days.
>>     
>
> It can't be any more broken than it is now. ;-)
>   
Indeed. This is why I use the IPv6 code included in this fork:
http://apthorpe.cynistar.net/code/sqlgrey/

It is based on the Net::CIDR module, which makes parsing IPv4 and IPv6
addresses much more reliable and easy.

I receive quite a lot of e-mail delivered over IPv6 and can testify it
works fine.

-- 
Patrick Vande Walle
Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Karl O. P. <ko...@me...>]

On 04/10/2009 07:23:41 AM, Dan Faerch wrote:
> Michal Ludvig wrote:
>> Well there is one thing - IPv6 handling is still a problem.

> I cant check the patch, since im not "IPv6 ready" yet. I have no  
> servers running ipv6 and nor experience with it.

> 
> I no one objects, ill add it to CVS within the next couple of days.

It can't be any more broken than it is now. ;-)

Karl <ko...@me...>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein

  P.S.  It's good to see someone's minding the store.

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Michal L. <ml...@lo...>]

Michal Ludvig wrote:
> Dan Faerch wrote:
>> It just works fine i guess.. Theres really nothing more to add at the 
>> moment :).
> 
> Well there is one thing - IPv6 handling is still a problem. I posted a
> problem description and a patch about a year ago and it still doesn't
> seem to be integrated:
> http://osdir.com/ml/mail.postfix.sqlgrey/2008-05/msg00000.html
> http://osdir.com/ml/mail.postfix.sqlgrey/2008-05/msg00001.html

FYI the database schema is already prepared for IPv6 so there is no need
to change that. The above mentioned patch is all that it takes to
correctly support IPv6.

Michal
-- 
* http://s3tools.org - Backup your data to Amazon S3!

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Michal L. <ml...@lo...>]

Dan Faerch wrote:
> sql...@xe... wrote:
>> I currently use this version on my production server and it works
>> just fine.  So is this a if it isn't broken don't fix it scenario,
>> or has development just halted?
>>   
> It just works fine i guess.. Theres really nothing more to add at the 
> moment :).

Well there is one thing - IPv6 handling is still a problem. I posted a
problem description and a patch about a year ago and it still doesn't
seem to be integrated:
http://osdir.com/ml/mail.postfix.sqlgrey/2008-05/msg00000.html
http://osdir.com/ml/mail.postfix.sqlgrey/2008-05/msg00001.html

Could you consider applying it to the CVS please?

Thanks

Michal

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] (no subject)

[<sql...@xe...>]

On Wednesday April 08 2009 3:39:23 pm Dan Faerch wrote:
> * Replies will be sent through Spamex to
> sql...@li... * For additional info click ->
> http://www.spamex.com/i/?v=25917804
>
> sql...@xe... wrote:
> > There are 2 people that constantly spam us and we cannot get them to
> > stop.  I have contacted their ISP/Mail Providers and them directly, but
> > the emails continue.  (The mail providers just happen to be AOL and
> > Gmail, so it's probably not a surprise they haven't taken immediate
> > action.)  Is there anyway to always greylist specific senders?
>
> The sole purpose of greylisting, is to make sure that the IP-address
> youre talking to, is in fact, a real mailserver.
> A lot of spam is sent through scripts or spambots, that do know know how
> to behave like a mailserver. Greylisting will make sure you never
> recieve these emails. But some spammers use real mailservers and
> greylisting cannot stop these mails. Its simply not what its designed for.
>
> So if youre 2 spammers are using Gmail and AOL's mailservers,
> greylisting is not the answer.
>
> >  I have tried to put these addresses in postfix's access database, but
> > it's almost like they get ignored.  Anything I can do?
>
> As David stated, it should be done in Postfix.
>
> Of the top of my head, you should look at something like this:
> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#smtpd_sender_restrictions
>
> Something like this in main.cf:
> smtpd_sender_restrictions = check_sender_access
> /etc/postfix/blocked_spammers, permit
>
> then in /etc/postfix/blocked_spammers add one email per line + REJECT.
> Like: evi...@ha...   REJECT
>
>
> But as i said, this is just of the top of my head and untested. :)
>
> - Dan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
> Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
> _______________________________________________
> Sqlgrey-users mailing list
> Sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlgrey-users

Perfect!  Thanks.  I will look into those links.

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] (no subject)

[David L. <da...@la...>]

David Landgren wrote, some time around 08/04/2009 21:51:
> sql...@xe... wrote, some time around 08/04/2009 22:45:
>> This isn't actually the question I wanted to ask, but I can't find the entry in my log in reference to my original question, so I'll ask this one instead.  Might be a bit off topic and/or not sqlgrey related, so I apologize if this is not.
>>
>> There are 2 people that constantly spam us and we cannot get them to stop.  I have contacted their ISP/Mail Providers and them directly, but the emails continue.  (The mail providers just happen to be AOL and Gmail, so it's probably not a surprise they haven't taken immediate action.)  Is there anyway to always greylist specific senders?  I have tried to put these addresses in postfix's access database, but it's almost like they get ignored.  Anything I can do?
> 
> Put them in an sender access map and reject them.

oops, I missed the fact that you said you'd tried this already. Postfix 
doesn't ignore your maps on a whim. The most likely hypothesis is that 
you're OKing the transaction too early for some reason. Make sure your 
sender access map is ordered to appear before your client access maps in 
the restrictions list.

David
--
Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] (no subject)

[David L. <da...@la...>]

sql...@xe... wrote, some time around 08/04/2009 22:45:
> This isn't actually the question I wanted to ask, but I can't find the entry in my log in reference to my original question, so I'll ask this one instead.  Might be a bit off topic and/or not sqlgrey related, so I apologize if this is not.
> 
> There are 2 people that constantly spam us and we cannot get them to stop.  I have contacted their ISP/Mail Providers and them directly, but the emails continue.  (The mail providers just happen to be AOL and Gmail, so it's probably not a surprise they haven't taken immediate action.)  Is there anyway to always greylist specific senders?  I have tried to put these addresses in postfix's access database, but it's almost like they get ignored.  Anything I can do?

Put them in an sender access map and reject them.

David
--
Give a politician an inch, and he'll think he's a ruler

[Sqlgrey-users] (no subject)

[<sql...@xe...>]

This isn't actually the question I wanted to ask, but I can't find the entry in my log in reference to my original question, so I'll ask this one instead.  Might be a bit off topic and/or not sqlgrey related, so I apologize if this is not.

There are 2 people that constantly spam us and we cannot get them to stop.  I have contacted their ISP/Mail Providers and them directly, but the emails continue.  (The mail providers just happen to be AOL and Gmail, so it's probably not a surprise they haven't taken immediate action.)  Is there anyway to always greylist specific senders?  I have tried to put these addresses in postfix's access database, but it's almost like they get ignored.  Anything I can do?

Thanks, Andrew

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[<sql...@xe...>]

On Wednesday April 08 2009 1:29:27 pm Dan Faerch wrote:
> * Replies will be sent through Spamex to
> sql...@li... * For additional info click ->
> http://www.spamex.com/i/?v=25917804
>
> sql...@xe... wrote:
> > Just curious, but there has been no updates since August 5, 2007 in which
> > the last version, 1.7.6 (devel) was released.
>
> The 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 was released by me, to add a bunch of new features.
> 1.7.5 added my new features and 1.7.6 fixed whatever bugs i had in my code.
>
> I think Lionel wanted to see the devel version work for a good while,
> before flagging it as "stable", but never got around to it :).. I forgot
> about it as well, as "it just worked" for me. And this mailinglist got
> all quiet, which usually means "everything is fine".
>
> I think we can call it stable by now ;) I run it under very heavy load
> in a 10 server cluster. No problems.
>
> >  I currently use this version on my production server and it works just
> > fine.  So is this a if it isn't broken don't fix it scenario, or has
> > development just halted?
>
> It just works fine i guess.. Theres really nothing more to add at the
> moment :).
>
> - Dan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
> Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
> _______________________________________________
> Sqlgrey-users mailing list
> Sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlgrey-users

Well, I guess that answers my question.  I am glad there are still developers 
still around.  Between greylisting and spamhaus (SBL) checking, spam is cut 
down by probably 90%.  I can't really complain ;).  I actually do have one 
question, but I'll post that in a separate email.

Thanks!

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] sqlgrey not installing as FreeBSD 7.1 pkg

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

Len Conrad a écrit, le 04/08/2009 04:55 AM :
>> he DBI Module for MySQL is called "DBD::mysql". Perl is case sensitive in terms of module names.
>>     
>
> yes, I know, but installing with ports or packages, I shouldn't have to bother with, or be bothered by, cases of file names.
>   

Then you should report this to the FreeBSD maintainers. SQLgrey clearly
states in the distributed configuration file comments that you should
use "db_type = mysql" to use MySQL, not "db_type=MySQL". There's nothing
more we can do.

Lionel

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] sqlgrey not installing as FreeBSD 7.1 pkg

[Len C. <LC...@Go...>]

>he DBI Module for MySQL is called "DBD::mysql". Perl is case sensitive in terms of module names.

yes, I know, but installing with ports or packages, I shouldn't have to bother with, or be bothered by, cases of file names.

Len

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

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

Craig White a écrit, le 04/07/2009 10:06 PM :
> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:31 -0400, sql...@xe... wrote:
>   
>> Just curious, but there has been no updates since August 5, 2007 in which the last version, 1.7.6 (devel) was released.  I currently use this version on my production server and it works just fine.  So is this a if it isn't broken don't fix it scenario, or has development just halted?
>>     
> ----
> Lionel has stopped developing it but it seems to work well.
>
> I see him on the rubyonrails list so I know he's around but probably not
> doing so much perl these days.
>   

Only when it's more convenient to do so.

I've hit a small bug in a corner case recently (a crash on repeated
database failures in some cases) so I might push a new release one day
but don't hold your breath for it.
I'm currently managing 2 small companies, they take quite a bit of my
time...

Lionel

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] sqlgrey not installing as FreeBSD 7.1 pkg

[Winfried N. <win...@ne...>]

Hi Len,

Am 07.04.2009 um 19:34 schrieb Len Conrad:

> Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: fatal: Can't locate object method  
> "driver" via package "DBD::MySQL"
> at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/DBI.pm line 787.
>
> Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: fatal: DBD::MySQL initialisation  
> failed: Can't locate object method "driver"
> via package "DBD::MySQL" at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/ 
> mach/DBI.pm line 787.  Perhaps
> the capitalisation of DBD 'MySQL' isn't right. at /usr/local/sbin/ 
> sqlgrey line 814
>
The DBI Module for MySQL is called "DBD::mysql". Perl is case  
sensitive in terms of module names.


Winni
-- 
Winfried Neessen
Peter-Bauer-Str. 9
50823 Cologne

Phone: +49 221 2612601
Fax: +49 221 2612602
Email: win...@ne...
PGP/GPG Key-ID: 0xda5cd8ef

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:31 -0400, sql...@xe... wrote:
> Just curious, but there has been no updates since August 5, 2007 in which the last version, 1.7.6 (devel) was released.  I currently use this version on my production server and it works just fine.  So is this a if it isn't broken don't fix it scenario, or has development just halted?
----
Lionel has stopped developing it but it seems to work well.

I see him on the rubyonrails list so I know he's around but probably not
doing so much perl these days.

I vaguely recollect him offering to have someone else assume the
project.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

[Sqlgrey-users] Is sqlgrey dead?

[<sql...@xe...>]

Just curious, but there has been no updates since August 5, 2007 in which the last version, 1.7.6 (devel) was released.  I currently use this version on my production server and it works just fine.  So is this a if it isn't broken don't fix it scenario, or has development just halted?

Thanks, Andrew

[Sqlgrey-users] sqlgrey not installing as FreeBSD 7.1 pkg

[Len C. <lc...@Go...>]

Installing sqlgrey and p5-DBD-mysql with pkg_add or with "make && make install" in each's /usr/ports directory fails.

Starting sqlgrey with /usr/local/etc/rc.d/sqlgrey gives:

Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: Process Backgrounded 

Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: 2009/04/07-12:25:32 sqlgrey (type Net::Server::Multiplex) starting! pid(81268) 

Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: Binding to TCP port 2501 on host localhost  

Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: Setting gid to "1001 1001" 

Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: Setting uid to "1003" 

Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: fatal: Can't locate object method "driver" via package "DBD::MySQL" at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/DBI.pm line 787. 

Apr  7 12:25:32 mx1 sqlgrey: fatal: DBD::MySQL initialisation failed: Can't locate object method "driver" via package "DBD::MySQL" at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/DBI.pm line 787.  Perhaps the capitalisation of DBD 'MySQL' isn't right. at /usr/local/sbin/sqlgrey line 814 

Thanks
Len

Re: [Sqlgrey-users] clients_fqdn_whitelist.local not working!?

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

sql...@xe... a écrit, le 07/17/2008 06:19 PM :
> Hello list,  I have a problem with a user that sends their email through hostedmail.com being greylisted.  They use their own domain name, but send through this hostedmail server.  The problem is that every time the hostedmail server resends it is from a different IP address.  I have added *.hostedemail.com

OK

>  and hostedemail.com

Not needed unless the servers IP resolve to this address.

>  to the clients_fqdn_whitelist.local file as well as the domain name which the user is using,

Not needed : if I understand correctly hostedmail uses their domain name 
for their reverse lookups.
>  *.kimxxxxxx.net and kimxxxxxx.net.  However, sqlgrey seems to just ignore this and continues to greylist all of these emails.  I have seriously considered adding the IP range (216.40.44.) to clients_ip_whitelist.local, but that just isn't a good fix IMO.  Here is an exert from my mail logs:
>
> Jul 13 11:12:29 mail postfix/smtpd[9730]: connect from smtprelay0085.hostedemail.com[216.40.44.85]
> Jul 13 11:12:32 mail sqlgrey: grey: new: 216.40.44.85(216.40.44.85), ki...@th... -> xx...@ou...
> Jul 13 11:12:32 mail postfix/smtpd[9730]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from smtprelay0085.hostedemail.com[216.40.44.85]: 450 <xx...@ou...>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 5 minutes; from=<ki...@th...> to=<xx...@ou...> proto=ESMTP helo=<smtprelay.hostedemail.com>
> Jul 13 11:12:33 mail postfix/smtpd[9730]: disconnect from smtprelay0085.hostedemail.com[216.40.44.85]
>   

Can you confirm that when you modified the clients_fqdn_whitelist.local 
file its content was reloaded (you should get a log line on the next 
message processing stating this) ?

> Next day, log now shows this:
>
> Jul 14 11:35:44 mail sqlgrey: spam: 216.40.44.85: ki...@th... -> xx...@ou... at 20080713111232
>   

Given the log lines above this is normal : the mail was rejected and 
never seen again.

> What is up?  Can anyone enlighten  me?
>   

3 possibilities :
- you don't modify the right files,
- SQLgrey doesn't detect the change -> try restarting it after modifying 
the whitelists, if the changes apply then, I'd like to know more about 
your system (OS, filesystem, Perl / SQLgrey versions, ....),
- there's a bug in SQLgrey : can anyone confirm/deny this behaviour (I 
don't use local whitelists...).

Lionel

[Sqlgrey-users] clients_fqdn_whitelist.local not working!?

[<sql...@xe...>]

Hello list,  I have a problem with a user that sends their email through hostedmail.com being greylisted.  They use their own domain name, but send through this hostedmail server.  The problem is that every time the hostedmail server resends it is from a different IP address.  I have added *.hostedemail.com and hostedemail.com to the clients_fqdn_whitelist.local file as well as the domain name which the user is using, *.kimxxxxxx.net and kimxxxxxx.net.  However, sqlgrey seems to just ignore this and continues to greylist all of these emails.  I have seriously considered adding the IP range (216.40.44.) to clients_ip_whitelist.local, but that just isn't a good fix IMO.  Here is an exert from my mail logs:

Jul 13 11:12:29 mail postfix/smtpd[9730]: connect from smtprelay0085.hostedemail.com[216.40.44.85]
Jul 13 11:12:32 mail sqlgrey: grey: new: 216.40.44.85(216.40.44.85), ki...@th... -> xx...@ou...
Jul 13 11:12:32 mail postfix/smtpd[9730]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from smtprelay0085.hostedemail.com[216.40.44.85]: 450 <xx...@ou...>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 5 minutes; from=<ki...@th...> to=<xx...@ou...> proto=ESMTP helo=<smtprelay.hostedemail.com>
Jul 13 11:12:33 mail postfix/smtpd[9730]: disconnect from smtprelay0085.hostedemail.com[216.40.44.85]

Next day, log now shows this:

Jul 14 11:35:44 mail sqlgrey: spam: 216.40.44.85: ki...@th... -> xx...@ou... at 20080713111232

What is up?  Can anyone enlighten  me?

Thanks, Andrew