Re: [[ Just to check ]]

[Felipe Augusto van de Wiel <felipe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Claudio,

Claudio Jeker wrote:
:: Yes. The 20040801 is currently the latest and
:: greates and AFAIK there are no current issues
:: with this patch.

	Ok. Thanks! :))


:: All patches that where bug-fixes are added but
:: have a look at the QLDAPNEWS file for more info
:: what went in and what not.

	Hmmm... I will update my QLDAPNEWS. :o)


:: It seems as if there is a patch for qmail-ldap
:: on the spamthrottle site. I just glimpsed at
:: the code and I'm not sure if I will directly
:: import it.

	Yes, there is a patch for qmail-ldap on
the spamthrottle site. I just ask about the patch
because I thought maybe it already included in
qmail-ldap or something similar.

	No doubt you should read with care the
patch before "merge" it. :))


:: It's quite a big patch for just a sleep()
:: before DATA. Also I doubt it will work corretly
:: in clustered setups but as I said I just
:: glimpsed at the code.

	In fact it is not just a sleep() before
DATA. From the manpage:

"Spam throttling acts in a similar  manner  to  tarpitting,
 except that it is highly parameterized, more flexible, and
 (hopefully)  more  effective.   A  wait  is  imposed  (via
 sleep(3))  following  the  DATA command depending on these
 SMTP parameters: remote IP address; previous SMTP  connec­
 tion timestamp; and previous wait time."

	Looks like that spamthrottle "see" the
environment, not just the connection, and considering
this, it imposes different "sleeps" time based
on previous connection and IPs. Sounds like a
good solution, but I don't if it is effective
and if it will work properly on clustered setups.


:: There are plans to limit the overall throughput
:: of mails via pbs but I'm currently busy.

	Ok! No problem! :)

	Thanks for quick answer and good job. ;)

	Cheers,

--
//////////
// Felipe Augusto van de Wiel
// Admin. de Redes e Sistemas
// felipe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
// http://www.paranacidade.org.br/
//////////