On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:06:48PM +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2010-06-29 02:13:08 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > I'm mucking with an idea, and hoping the denizens here might have some
> > input, esp. about potential breakage introduced.
> >
> > Summary:
> > For any given valid recipien
On 2010-06-29 02:13:08 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'm mucking with an idea, and hoping the denizens here might have some
> input, esp. about potential breakage introduced.
>
> Summary:
> For any given valid recipient, compare the sender whitelist of exact
> matches and regexes. If the sende
On Jun 29, 2010, at 4:13, "Robin H. Johnson" wrote:
> Summary:
> For any given valid recipient, compare the sender whitelist of exact
> matches and regexes. If the sender is NOT present, issue a permanant
> deny (5xx).
Nice idea. Here at perl.org a human is (amazingly) moderating all the
non-
On Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 02:13:08 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Summary:
> For any given valid recipient, compare the sender whitelist of exact
> matches and regexes. If the sender is NOT present, issue a permanant
> deny (5xx).
> Details:
> For the Gentoo mailing lists, we're seeing a lot non-
Hi Robin,
please have a look at our db/suite, especially the module db/user
http://dienstleistung-kultur.de/qpsmtpd/db_user.shtml
A description of our mail system and statistics you'll find on
http://dienstleistung-kultur.de/spamstat.shtml
Maybe you get some inspiration from our solution.
Since
I'm mucking with an idea, and hoping the denizens here might have some
input, esp. about potential breakage introduced.
Summary:
For any given valid recipient, compare the sender whitelist of exact
matches and regexes. If the sender is NOT present, issue a permanant
deny (5xx).
Details:
For the
