From: Bastien L. <ba...@yo...> - 2010-03-15 14:33:09
|
Hi, using SQLGrey Version: 1.6.8-1 since a 10 days on our production setup, receiving around 600 000 message per day. 2 servers hosting sqlgrey and 1 backend postgreSQL DB for sqlgrey. It does work really great, thanks for this great tool ;) Only little problem, I wanna solve is that really rarely (most of time, 1 or 2 times a day, sometimes 0), SQLGrey does encounter a concatenation problem and does not succeed to enter some data in DB. This does trigger a lost connection and reconnection event, therefore sending me an email to tell me that connection to database was lost and a second one one second later to tell me that connection is back. I identified 2 mails which triggered this kind of problem . Any idea of what was so special with theses 2 emails? Or a way to tell SQLGrey to wait for 3 or 4 lost connections before sending alert email? (false positive are a bit annoying) Mar 15 15:09:02 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: grey: get_reconnect_delay error: no connect in database for web...@de..., 78.40.49, adm...@de... Mar 15 15:09:02 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: warning: Use of uninitialized value $delay in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/sbin/sqlgrey line 2053. Mar 15 15:09:02 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: grey: reconnect ok: 78.40.49(78.40.49.241), web...@de... -> adm...@de... () Mar 15 15:09:02 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: grey: from awl: 78.40.49, web...@de... added Mar 15 15:09:02 PHMCSMTP02 postfix/pickup[15438]: DE3F311C9FB: uid=111 from=<sqlgrey> Mar 15 15:09:02 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: warning: Use of uninitialized value $DBI::errstr in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/sbin/sqlgrey line 237. Mar 15 15:09:02 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: dbaccess: warning: couldn't do query:#012INSERT INTO from_awl (sender_name, sender_domain, src, first_seen, last_seen) VALUES('webmaster','de cade.fr','78.40.49','error: nothing in connect',NOW()):#012, reconnecting to DB Mar 10 20:56:48 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: grey: reconnect ok: 88.191.81(88.191.81.9), bo...@ph... -> vg...@ka... (00:08:25.241069) Mar 10 20:56:48 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: grey: from awl: 88.191.81, bo...@ph... added Mar 10 20:56:48 PHMCSMTP02 postfix/pickup[18078]: 94CF911C9FC: uid=111 from=<sqlgrey> Mar 10 20:56:48 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: warning: Use of uninitialized value $DBI::errstr in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/sbin/sqlgrey line 237. Mar 10 20:56:48 PHMCSMTP02 sqlgrey: dbaccess: warning: couldn't do query:#012INSERT INTO from_awl (sender_name, sender_domain, src, first_seen, last_seen) VALUES('bounce','phpli st.fr','88.191.81','2010-03-10 20:52:12.482616',NOW()):#012, reconnecting to DB Mar 10 20:56:48 PHMCSMTP02 postfix/qmgr[12199]: 94CF911C9FC: from=<sq...@PH...>, size=441, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Thanks Bastien |
From: Lionel B. <lio...@bo...> - 2010-03-15 15:35:31
|
The Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:20:00 +0100, Bastien LAMOUREUX <ba...@yo...> wrote: > Hi, using SQLGrey Version: 1.6.8-1 since a 10 days on our > production setup, receiving around 600 000 message per day. 2 > servers hosting sqlgrey and 1 backend postgreSQL DB for sqlgrey. It > does work really great, thanks for this great tool ;) > > > Only little problem, I wanna solve is that really rarely (most of > time, 1 or 2 times a day, sometimes 0), SQLGrey does encounter a > concatenation problem and does not succeed to enter some data in DB. > This does trigger a lost connection and reconnection event, therefore > sending me an email to tell me that connection to database was lost > and a second one one second later to tell me that connection is back. > > I identified 2 mails which triggered this kind of problem . Any idea > of what was so special with theses 2 emails? Or a way to tell SQLGrey > to wait for 3 or 4 lost connections before sending alert email? > (false positive are a bit annoying) What probably happened is that the origin server contacted both MX at nearly the same time (spam servers are known to do this). The first MX managed to recognize the email and remove it from the connect table before the second MX tried to fetch the entry in the same connect table. This case is hard to detect and we don't have any workable solution in the code yet. Lionel |
From: Bruce B. <bb...@bo...> - 2010-04-04 16:18:32
|
Happy Easter to all! What would be the suggested way to whitelist a singular email address? May I simply add, jo...@ao..., to clients_fqdn_whitelist.local or would I have to add it as a regex, such as /^(johndoe)\@aol.com/ I can not find any example of this in either the documentation or the bundled version of clients_fqdn_whitelist. P.S. I see that some AOL common pool servers are whitelisted in the distributed clients_ip_whitelist... 64.12.137 # AOL (common pool) - http://postmaster.aol.com/ servers/imo.html 64.12.138 # AOL (common pool) 152.163.225 # AOL (common pool) 205.188.139.136 # AOL (common pool) 205.188.139.137 # AOL (common pool) 205.188.144.207 # AOL (common pool) 205.188.144.208 # AOL (common pool) 205.188.156.66 # AOL (common pool) 205.188.157 # AOL (common pool) 205.188.159.7 # AOL (common pool) However, in this case the email came in from 64.12.206. I'm reluctant to add 64.12.206 to clients_ip_whiltelist.local without direction from a more experienced sqlgrey user. I fear it may inadvertently "over-whiten" my installation. Thank you, B. Bodger Oklahoma City, OK |
From: Winfried N. <win...@ne...> - 2010-04-04 21:36:49
Attachments:
PGP.sig
|
Hi, Bruce Bodger schrieb: > What would be the suggested way to whitelist a singular email > address? May I simply add, jo...@ao..., to > clients_fqdn_whitelist.local or would I have to add it as a regex, > such as /^(johndoe)\@aol.com/ I can not find any example of > this in either the documentation or the bundled version of > clients_fqdn_whitelist. > > Non of the examples you mentioned. SQLgrey doesn't look at email addresses, but only at hostnames/ip address of sending servers. If you really wanna whitelist that email address, you should put some postfix exception rule in place, that will whiteliste the mail before sqlgrey can block it (though this isn't a really good idea). 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 |
From: Bruce B. <bb...@bo...> - 2010-04-05 13:57:13
|
On Apr 4, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Winfried Neessen wrote: > Hi, > > Bruce Bodger schrieb: >> >> What would be the suggested way to whitelist a singular email >> address? May I simply add, jo...@ao..., to >> clients_fqdn_whitelist.local or would I have to add it as a regex, >> such as /^(johndoe)\@aol.com/ > Non of the examples you mentioned. SQLgrey doesn't look at email > addresses, but only > at hostnames/ip address of sending servers. If you really wanna > whitelist that email > address, you should put some postfix exception rule in place, that > will whiteliste the > mail before sqlgrey can block it (though this isn't a really good > idea). Thank you for the reply, Winni. Since, as you state, SQLgrey only looks to the right of the "@" symbol, adding 64.12.206 to my clients_ip_whitelist.local might be the cleanest way. Regards, Bruce |
From: Kyle L. <la...@uc...> - 2010-04-05 14:34:50
|
Bruce Bodger wrote: > Since, as you state, SQLgrey only looks > to the right of the "@" symbol, adding 64.12.206 to my > clients_ip_whitelist.local might be the cleanest way. For what it's worth, you'll probably have to add more than that. The list used by SQLgrey to whitelist AOL is a bit stale; this is, to my knowledge, the authoritative declaration of AOL's outbound mail servers: http://postmaster.aol.com/servers/imo.html --Kyle |
From: Bruce B. <bb...@bo...> - 2010-04-05 15:17:58
|
> >> Since, as you state, SQLgrey only looks >> to the right of the "@" symbol, adding 64.12.206 to my >> clients_ip_whitelist.local might be the cleanest way. > > For what it's worth, you'll probably have to add more than that. The > list > used by SQLgrey to whitelist AOL is a bit stale; this is, to my > knowledge, > the authoritative declaration of AOL's outbound mail servers: > > http://postmaster.aol.com/servers/imo.html Thanks a lot for that, Kyle. But are they all "misbehaved"... i.e. do they all warrant adding to the whitelist? Regards, Bruce |
From: Kyle L. <la...@uc...> - 2010-04-05 17:08:28
|
Bruce Bodger wrote: > Thanks a lot for that, Kyle. But are they all "misbehaved"... i.e. do > they all warrant adding to the whitelist? I don't know. After whitelisting Google's SPF record (which includes something like 70,000 /24 address blocks), I didn't feel so ambivalent about whitelisting AOL's server list. With whitelisting, one has to hope that the odds are in favor of the whitelisted IP or IP range remaining free of spam-bots. In general, for addresses assigned to mail servers, this is likely to be the case. I realize this breaks the generality of the greylisting, but does not appear to have a measurable impact on the overall effectiveness. --Kyle |