From Dejan.Krnjevic at saga.rs  Tue Jun 14 21:36:16 2011
From: Dejan.Krnjevic at saga.rs (Dejan Krnjevic)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:36:16 +0200
Subject: [Gross] Whitelist doesn't respond after some time
Message-ID: <7C08D83C56A4C240AA42A678369AA31601F16859@exchange.saga.co.yu>

Hello all,

 

I am having problem with respons to my whitelist. I am running
2.6.18-238.9.1.el5xen with Sendmail 8.13.8 and latest Gross version.
First time when I start Gross whitelist and blacklist are responding
well and it counts whitelist matches as it should. After some time
(never at same interval) it stops to respond to whitelist but blacklist
still working. Looks like it has problem with counts but I am not sure.
Any suggestion what to look at or any hints?

 

 

BR,

 

Dejan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.utu.fi/pipermail/gross/attachments/20110614/3d291866/attachment.html>

From eino at utu.fi  Thu Jun 16 13:12:03 2011
From: eino at utu.fi (Eino Tuominen)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:12:03 +0000
Subject: [Gross] Whitelist doesn't respond after some time
In-Reply-To: <7C08D83C56A4C240AA42A678369AA31601F16859@exchange.saga.co.yu>
References: <7C08D83C56A4C240AA42A678369AA31601F16859@exchange.saga.co.yu>
Message-ID: <6F1A9072-067E-4AA1-B977-0B7C48AEDC1F@utu.fi>


On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dejan Krnjevic wrote:

> Hello all,
>  
> I am having problem with respons to my whitelist. I am running 2.6.18-238.9.1.el5xen with Sendmail 8.13.8 and latest Gross version. First time when I start Gross whitelist and blacklist are responding well and it counts whitelist matches as it should. After some time (never at same interval) it stops to respond to whitelist but blacklist still working. Looks like it has problem with counts but I am not sure. Any suggestion what to look at or any hints?

Hi Dejan,

Interesting. The code for both kind of lists is basically the same. Can you check if changing the order of dnsbl and dnswl statements in the config file makes any difference? What version do you mean by "latest" (gross -V shows the version)?

-- 
  Eino Tuominen






From Dejan.Krnjevic at saga.rs  Thu Jun 16 16:09:08 2011
From: Dejan.Krnjevic at saga.rs (Dejan Krnjevic)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:09:08 +0200
Subject: [Gross] Whitelist doesn't respond after some time
In-Reply-To: <6F1A9072-067E-4AA1-B977-0B7C48AEDC1F@utu.fi>
References: <7C08D83C56A4C240AA42A678369AA31601F16859@exchange.saga.co.yu>
 <6F1A9072-067E-4AA1-B977-0B7C48AEDC1F@utu.fi>
Message-ID: <7C08D83C56A4C240AA42A678369AA31601F5C2A6@exchange.saga.co.yu>

Hi Eino,

Yes. Gross version is 1.0.2. Ok, I will give try by changing order and I
will let you know. 


BR,

Dejan

-----Original Message-----
From: Eino Tuominen [mailto:eino at utu.fi] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:12 PM
To: Dejan Krnjevic
Cc: <gross at lists.utu.fi>
Subject: Re: [Gross] Whitelist doesn't respond after some time


On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dejan Krnjevic wrote:

> Hello all,
>  
> I am having problem with respons to my whitelist. I am running
2.6.18-238.9.1.el5xen with Sendmail 8.13.8 and latest Gross version.
First time when I start Gross whitelist and blacklist are responding
well and it counts whitelist matches as it should. After some time
(never at same interval) it stops to respond to whitelist but blacklist
still working. Looks like it has problem with counts but I am not sure.
Any suggestion what to look at or any hints?

Hi Dejan,

Interesting. The code for both kind of lists is basically the same. Can
you check if changing the order of dnsbl and dnswl statements in the
config file makes any difference? What version do you mean by "latest"
(gross -V shows the version)?

-- 
  Eino Tuominen






From natanael.copa at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 14:57:23 2011
From: natanael.copa at gmail.com (Natanael Copa)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:57:23 +0200
Subject: [Gross] graylisting on ip, helo string and domain part of sender
Message-ID: <CAJT+8ew8wJ14Zi+C2D2=aPCAKs+F4rr=0tV2ZbDybpkOEyOkEw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We have an issue with gross and mailing lists. The problem is that
gross greylists on ip, sender email and recepient email. Since the
sender email is often different the emails from mailing lists will
almost always gets grelisted and delayed.

So I'm an interested in generating the hash from ip,
domain_part_of(sender_email) and helo. Now, this is trivial to patch,
but I think this should be a configurable option. So, my question is
how I should implement the config option?

I could either let it be a fixed constant:

hash_by = default
hash_by = alternate

Or I could make it possible to hash by any combination:

hash_by = $chkip $sender $recepient
hash_by = $chkip $sender_domain $helo

Other ideas?

-- 
Natanael Copa


From eino at utu.fi  Tue Jul  5 16:04:10 2011
From: eino at utu.fi (Eino Tuominen)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:04:10 +0000
Subject: [Gross] graylisting on ip, helo string and domain part of sender
In-Reply-To: <CAJT+8ew8wJ14Zi+C2D2=aPCAKs+F4rr=0tV2ZbDybpkOEyOkEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJT+8ew8wJ14Zi+C2D2=aPCAKs+F4rr=0tV2ZbDybpkOEyOkEw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D4021676-9478-411D-A88D-193DEC8236C9@utu.fi>


On Jul 5, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Natanael Copa wrote:

> but I think this should be a configurable option. So, my question is
> how I should implement the config option?
> 
> I could either let it be a fixed constant:
> 
> hash_by = default
> hash_by = alternate

Hello,

A good idea, I'd be glad to accept the patch. I think you should pick a bit more descriptive names for the option values in case you find other ways to construct the hash.

> Or I could make it possible to hash by any combination:
> 
> hash_by = $chkip $sender $recepient
> hash_by = $chkip $sender_domain $helo

This would be perfect, of course, but is it worth the effort?

Don't hesitate to contact me, should you have any questions about the current source code.

-- 
  Eino Tuominen

From natanael.copa at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 16:26:22 2011
From: natanael.copa at gmail.com (Natanael Copa)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:26:22 +0200
Subject: [Gross] graylisting on ip, helo string and domain part of sender
In-Reply-To: <D4021676-9478-411D-A88D-193DEC8236C9@utu.fi>
References: <CAJT+8ew8wJ14Zi+C2D2=aPCAKs+F4rr=0tV2ZbDybpkOEyOkEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4021676-9478-411D-A88D-193DEC8236C9@utu.fi>
Message-ID: <CAJT+8exo71uOKxOt_2dC9wc05LY9Gg+_NfjeYTCipNpEow9+Vw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Eino Tuominen <eino at utu.fi> wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Natanael Copa wrote:
>
>> but I think this should be a configurable option. So, my question is
>> how I should implement the config option?
>>
>> I could either let it be a fixed constant:
>>
>> hash_by = default
>> hash_by = alternate
>
> Hello,
>
> A good idea, I'd be glad to accept the patch. I think you should pick a bit more descriptive names for the option values in case you find other ways to construct the hash.

Agree. I was kinda fishing for better names :)

>> Or I could make it possible to hash by any combination:
>>
>> hash_by = $chkip $sender $recepient
>> hash_by = $chkip $sender_domain $helo
>
> This would be perfect, of course, but is it worth the effort?

Probably not. Only few combinations makes sense.

> Don't hesitate to contact me, should you have any questions about the current source code.

What do you think of the attached patch? It's only compile tested, but
if you are ok with the config name etc I can apply it to alpine linux
package for testing.

I think I still have svn commit access so if you are ok with it I'll
commit it after a basic smoke testing.


Thanks!

>
> --
> ?Eino Tuominen



-- 
Natanael Copa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gross-grey-tuple.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3209 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.utu.fi/pipermail/gross/attachments/20110705/723ad1dd/attachment.obj>

From eino at utu.fi  Tue Jul  5 17:42:03 2011
From: eino at utu.fi (Eino Tuominen)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:42:03 +0000
Subject: [Gross] graylisting on ip, helo string and domain part of sender
In-Reply-To: <CAJT+8exo71uOKxOt_2dC9wc05LY9Gg+_NfjeYTCipNpEow9+Vw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJT+8ew8wJ14Zi+C2D2=aPCAKs+F4rr=0tV2ZbDybpkOEyOkEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4021676-9478-411D-A88D-193DEC8236C9@utu.fi>
 <CAJT+8exo71uOKxOt_2dC9wc05LY9Gg+_NfjeYTCipNpEow9+Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5EAA20E8-59DE-48A0-9DA7-3AABEE662E70@utu.fi>


On Jul 5, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Natanael Copa wrote:

> I think I still have svn commit access so if you are ok with it I'll
> commit it after a basic smoke testing.

The patch seems to look ok at first glance. I think the current svn trunk is kinda unusable, so it might make sense to put this in 1.0 branch. Feel free to update NEWS et. al. (and of course rename the version to 1.0-svn).

Thanks!

-- 
  Eino Tuominen




From natanael.copa at gmail.com  Tue Jul  5 18:04:03 2011
From: natanael.copa at gmail.com (Natanael Copa)
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:04:03 +0200
Subject: [Gross] graylisting on ip, helo string and domain part of sender
In-Reply-To: <5EAA20E8-59DE-48A0-9DA7-3AABEE662E70@utu.fi>
References: <CAJT+8ew8wJ14Zi+C2D2=aPCAKs+F4rr=0tV2ZbDybpkOEyOkEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D4021676-9478-411D-A88D-193DEC8236C9@utu.fi>
 <CAJT+8exo71uOKxOt_2dC9wc05LY9Gg+_NfjeYTCipNpEow9+Vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5EAA20E8-59DE-48A0-9DA7-3AABEE662E70@utu.fi>
Message-ID: <CAJT+8exFXaS67bb=3XJY0Wo3CV903u08QjH2LoPMd+CPrmaT2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Eino Tuominen <eino at utu.fi> wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Natanael Copa wrote:
>
>> I think I still have svn commit access so if you are ok with it I'll
>> commit it after a basic smoke testing.
>
> The patch seems to look ok at first glance. I think the current svn trunk is kinda unusable, so it might make sense to put this in 1.0 branch. Feel free to update NEWS et. al. (and of course rename the version to 1.0-svn).

...and docs etc.
I'll have a look at it.

Thanks!

>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> ?Eino Tuominen
>
>
>



-- 
Natanael Copa


From Dejan.Krnjevic at saga.rs  Mon Jul 11 12:32:17 2011
From: Dejan.Krnjevic at saga.rs (Dejan Krnjevic)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:32:17 +0200
Subject: [Gross] Whitelist doesn't respond after some time
In-Reply-To: <6F1A9072-067E-4AA1-B977-0B7C48AEDC1F@utu.fi>
References: <7C08D83C56A4C240AA42A678369AA31601F16859@exchange.saga.co.yu>
 <6F1A9072-067E-4AA1-B977-0B7C48AEDC1F@utu.fi>
Message-ID: <7C08D83C56A4C240AA42A678369AA3160205A806@exchange.saga.co.yu>

Hi Eino,

I have changed order of dnsbl and dnswl statements in the config file,
but same problem still remains. I have attached my config file.


BR,

Dejan

-----Original Message-----
From: Eino Tuominen [mailto:eino at utu.fi] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:12 PM
To: Dejan Krnjevic
Cc: <gross at lists.utu.fi>
Subject: Re: [Gross] Whitelist doesn't respond after some time


On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dejan Krnjevic wrote:

> Hello all,
>  
> I am having problem with respons to my whitelist. I am running
2.6.18-238.9.1.el5xen with Sendmail 8.13.8 and latest Gross version.
First time when I start Gross whitelist and blacklist are responding
well and it counts whitelist matches as it should. After some time
(never at same interval) it stops to respond to whitelist but blacklist
still working. Looks like it has problem with counts but I am not sure.
Any suggestion what to look at or any hints?

Hi Dejan,

Interesting. The code for both kind of lists is basically the same. Can
you check if changing the order of dnsbl and dnswl statements in the
config file makes any difference? What version do you mean by "latest"
(gross -V shows the version)?

-- 
  Eino Tuominen




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: grossd.conf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6842 bytes
Desc: grossd.conf
URL: <http://lists.utu.fi/pipermail/gross/attachments/20110711/ddddce15/attachment.obj>