OpenBSD Journal

Important changes in spamd for upcoming 4.1

Contributed by jj on from the gandalf-the-greylisted dept.

For you who follow -current, snapshots or if you are eager to update to 4.1 on your greylisting servers, take notice of the change in behaviour of spamd(8). Since greylisting is now the default the -g option has been removed. There is a new -l option to select which address spamd should bind to.

Also, the spamd.conf has moved to /etc/mail from /etc, make sure to move it when upgrading.

More information on how the changes for OpenBSD 4.1 applies to spamd here:

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Peter Curran (12.28.176.194) on

    Any chance of IPv6 support in spamd?

  2. By jason (TheDudeAbides) jason@snakelegs.org on http://www.snakelegs.org

    Note also that the HELO/EHLO string is going to be logged. I've always avoided paying attention to it, for good reason, I think. Curious about differing opinions, though.

    Also, note a couple of performance improvements (here and here).

    Having used spamd with greylisting in production for a couple months now, it's fabulous. Throw in greyscanner, some [mostly] unused domains, and an sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org check on the greylist, and very little bogus comes through at all. I'm looking forward to being able to sync between widely-dispersed MX's at some point (4.1?) and am curious to see how that will be implemented.

    Great work, Beck et al.

  3. By Anonymous Coward (213.118.134.55) on

    Does it, by any chance, come with a sensible whitelist? I seem to remember that there are still legit mailservers out there that don't bother trying to resend mail..

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (83.182.165.156) on

      > Does it, by any chance, come with a sensible whitelist? I seem to remember that there are still legit mailservers out there that don't bother trying to resend mail..

      If their servers are buggy and don't follow RFC, they just have to fix them and not expect other people to cope for their own bugs.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (81.178.117.8) on

        > > Does it, by any chance, come with a sensible whitelist? I seem to remember that there are still legit mailservers out there that don't bother trying to resend mail..
        >
        > If their servers are buggy and don't follow RFC, they just have to fix them and not expect other people to cope for their own bugs.

        http://www.greylisting.org/whitelisting.shtml has such a list if one is needed. Don't know how up-to-date it is.

        For some users, "screw buggy servers" may not be an acceptable approach.
        Of course, there's nothing to stop one using that list as a blacklist with a message "Your servers don't support greylisting properly so *all* your emails are being dropped until your servers are fixed."... a bit much for my tastes but each to their own.

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]