Gustav Foseid
gustavf-dcc@initio.no
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:56:02 +0200
Vernon Schryver: > > I am interested in other peoples experiences with building whitelists. > > I think avoiding false positives is more important than preventing > false nagatives. It is better to pass spam than to reject legitimate > mail. There are at least two ways to do that with the DCC: > > 1. only insert the headers and let end users do any rejecting using > procmail or other tools. This might work with "users" that know what a header is, with "lusers" the story is completely different. > 2. use the To: whitelist mechanism in dccm. Mail sent to white-listed > targets is passed regardless of the DCC counts. Perhaps use `dccm -W` > and "OK2" entries to cause only addresses explicitly listed to be > affected. (sheesh!--who wrote and proofread the description of -W?) This could be a solution. I will see how much time I have to write a client that will work for me (I am using mostly Postfix, but also Qmail at some sites). > Perhaps I need to change how dccm treates mail addressed simultaneously > to white-listed and unlisted addressees. Currently, the message > is rejected, discarded, or delivered to all addressees. I've resisted > doing this, because it requires that dccm record the addressees at > the start of the SMTP transaction and at the end remove those who should > not receive the message. It is also not clear what SMTP reply status > I should generate for a message that is partly delivered. > What do you think? I don't know very much about milter, but there is only one way to handle this, taht I can see. The message must be accepted with "250 OK" and a bounce message must be sent reporting a delivery failure to each of the recipients that did not receive the e-mail. -- Gustav Foseid, Initio IT-løsninger AS gustavf@initio.no