dccifd spam reporting and env_to whitelisting

chris@mikk.net chris@mikk.net
Fri Jan 23 21:59:27 UTC 2004


On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:08:20 -0700 (MST) , Vernon Schryver writes:
> It's obvious I think they should differ.

Ah.  Your first reply sounded like you were telling my
the behavior I wanted was already there.

> You seem to be trying to do two different things with a single pass
> by dccif().  First your your system somehow decides that a message is
> spam and seeks to report it as certainly bulky to the DCC.  Then your
> system wants to consult dccifd to see about delivering the message.
> What if you separate those two tasks into two different interactions
> with the DCC?

The following sequence could happen:

 	1) message is reported as spam to DCC server #1
        2) client switches to DCC server #2
	3) message is queried against DCC server #2,
	   and accepted for all recipients.
        4) checksum is flooded from server #1 to server #2

Although it's not the end of the world, it is unreliable,
and not a very clean solution (you waste a query to the
DCC server just to consult the dccifd whiteclnt and
userdirs).  If dccifd treated bulk mail the same whether
it gets the "bulkiness" from the MTA or the DCC server,
I could cleanly and reliably do this with one query.

Would this behavior be appropriate with a different option?
That is, don't change the behavior of DCCIF_OPT_ISSPAM,
but add a DCCIF_OPT_PROBABLE_SPAM which tells dccifd that
the MTA thinks the message is spam, but doesn't override
whitelisting.  Does this sound like a good idea?

-- 
Chris Mikkelson  | Einstein himself said that God doesn't roll dice. But
chris@mikk.net   | he was wrong.  And in fact, anyone who has played role-
		 | playing games knows that God probably had to roll quite
                 | a few dice to come up with a character like Einstein.
		 |				-- Larry Wall



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.