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.
|
