20 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] Dial back user ve...
FromSent OnAttachments
Gordon MessmerJul 14, 2003 12:34 pm 
James A BakerJul 14, 2003 1:17 pm 
Gordon MessmerJul 14, 2003 5:01 pm 
James A BakerJul 15, 2003 6:10 am 
Gordon MessmerJul 15, 2003 3:51 pm 
Gordon MessmerJul 21, 2003 12:29 pm 
Johannes ErdfeltJul 21, 2003 2:17 pm 
Gordon MessmerJul 21, 2003 3:24 pm 
Jerry AmundsonJul 25, 2003 9:46 am 
Gordon MessmerJul 25, 2003 11:41 am 
Mitch (WebCob)Jul 25, 2003 1:20 pm 
Gordon MessmerAug 5, 2003 3:40 pm 
Gordon MessmerAug 7, 2003 2:54 pm 
Jerry AmundsonAug 8, 2003 9:56 am 
Gordon MessmerAug 8, 2003 10:21 am 
Mitch (WebCob)Aug 8, 2003 11:18 am 
Jerry AmundsonAug 8, 2003 12:37 pm 
Jerry AmundsonAug 8, 2003 7:57 pm 
Jon NelsonAug 8, 2003 8:32 pm 
Jon NelsonAug 8, 2003 8:56 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [courier-users] Dial back user verificationActions...
From:Gordon Messmer (yiny@eburg.com)
Date:Jul 21, 2003 12:29:26 pm
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

Gordon Messmer wrote:

I've begun testing a Courier filter that implements dial-back address authentication, and I'd like to offer it for testing and discussion. It can be found here:

http://phantom.dragonsdawn.net/~gordon/courier-patches/courier-pythonfilter/ ... The filter includes a sender cache, kept in memory. I haven't added the expiration loop yet, so this cache will grow without bounds.

The expiration loop has been added, and error conditions have been tested. I've been running this on a low volume server of my own for about a week, and it seems to work properly.

I guess what I'd like to know is: * How often does this filter reject spam, in practice?

In my testing, both live and simulated, about 25-30% of spam is rejected.

* Are there any servers that will give a different reply to RCPT than they do to VRFY?

Apparently, so the filter uses RCPT.

* Should a GDBM file be used rather than an in-memory dictionary?

Still don't know. Probably. I'm evaluating the memory requirements before making that change.

If anyone is willing to help test the filter, please let me know if it causes any problems.