Re: Exploring Greylisting - Initial Block Tim
Dennis Wynne <[email protected]> Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:52:00 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.greylist.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In the relaydelay.conf file: # This determines how many seconds we will block inbound mail that is # from a previously unknown [ip,from,to] triplet. If it is set to # zero, incoming mail associations will be learned, but no deliveries # will be tempfailed. Use a setting of zero with caution, as it # will learn spammers as well as legitimate senders. # If it is set to a negative number (like -1), then the mail will # be tempfailed the first time it is seen, but accepted thereafter. $delay_mail_secs = 58 * 60; # 58 Minutes So the time is in seconda. I started out with the default in late testing and when I first went live. I got a lot of push back from folks about delaying mail for an hour or more - so I looked in the logs for the first days and asked here. Most folks said 1,2, or 3 minutes max. I ended up picking 55 SECONDS based on thinking of it and looking the logs. When I had it said for nearly an hour, I had SPAMmers retry for longer than that and get through. Looking at some that retried and gave up, I had SPAM appearing entries in the logs that retried a lot for the first few seconds and then gave up. So as I said, with a lot of servers retrying at the 30 second and/or 1 minute point, just under a minute made sense. Greylisting even with this low number, along with blacklists and the connect delay have wiped out 95% of so of our SPAM. The rest is so easy for the users just to ignore or delete that I am not going to even add "MimeDefang" or use SpamAssassin as I had planned. Everyone now is pretty happy, but I do have to produce a daily report of missed mail so users can tell me ones I can whitelist (faulty servers on the other end). I have a php script now (based on stuff from Paul Venezia on this list) I run for the local users so they can view the blocked messages for their accout "real time" if they want to. I had to whitelist things like swa (this is the whitelist file that comes with the relaydelay.pl) that use unique mail froms and different servers. I have some other ones similar to what you specify from Bellsouth - the retries come on various IPs but the same from and to. One thing to note - we have a small group of users here. So often when I whitelist I add the IP, exact from and exact to to the file (just like it is done automatically, but with no expire). I modified the xlist.pl script to do that. I figure no reason to give a free pass to every machine at that IP if I don't have to so the manually added, never expires triplet just takes the place of the auto added triplet that didn't work due to the other end's faulty mail server. Dennis >===== Original Message From [email protected] (Greylisting Users and Developers Discuss) ===== >Thanks for the feedback Denis. > >So you have a seconds resolution? Ok, we add a seconds resolution as well. > >Ok, I just thought that the 1 hour block time was too tight. Given the fact >that we offer a retry frequency options to admins, I can't assume that a >default of 1 hour is going to be "significant" majority. In fact, we >already have in planning to offer a more variable base retry frequency table >based on error condition. > >I noticed bellsouth.net retries immediately within seconds on a pool of >outgoing servers. For this bellsouth.net test, I noticed it was trying >nearly every few seconds from different class c servers. When exhausted, it >seem to shift to a 5 mins retry from the same group of class c servers. >Eventually when the triplet matched one of the early attempts, it took 13 >minutes before it was accepted. So obviously this requires a Class C masking >match logic. :-) > >Thanks again for your feedback > >-- >Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. >http://www.santronics.com > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dennis Wynne" <[email protected]> >To: "Greylisting Users and Developers Discuss" ><[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:13 PM >Subject: Re: [Greylist-users] Exploring Greylisting - Initial Block Time > > >Glad you asked before you went live. I am now around 55 seconds for mine >and most folks that I asked said 1-3 minutes. One of my customers is running >5 on their server. I started with the nearly one hour default and ran that >way for a bit - until I asked the list what to run. > >What I have found from studying the logs - most SPAMmers never retry so you >have 100% success blocking those, a few retry a bunch right away (within >seconds of the first hit) - any setting longer than 30-40 seconds gets >those, almost NONE that I ever saw that would retry after 1 minute would >give up before 1 hour. So setting it longer than a minute or two is going >to block almost 0 SPAM and just going to delay the good mail for longer. > >Most mail servers seem to retry after 1 minute (or at 30 seconds and 1 >minute) so setting it for under 1 minute gets the mail on the 2nd or 3rd >try. > >Dennis > >===== Original Message from [email protected] (Greylisting >Users and Developers Discuss) at 3/02/06 1:54 pm >>Hi, I'm new to the list. >> >>I have been exploring greylisting for our SMTP package. >> >>I have a question regarding the recommended 1 hour initial block time. >> >>I don't see the direct correlation of the block time with associating good >>or bad SMTP clients. The RFC has a recommendation, but that's just it - a >>recommendation. There is no fixture on a retry pattern, atleast I don't >see >>it. >> >>Isn't the primary goal satisfied by simply addressing the nearly 100% bad >>actors that do not follow 421 response codes? >> >>I have been exploring this with no block time limit. I'm close to putting >>this out to beta testing and I'm wondering what default I should use. It >>seems to me that from an operations standpoint, we are a lot "safer" to not >>have initial 1 hour block limit. For our test site, I see just a >>significant amount of good systems retrying within minutes or seconds. >> >>I'm aware each site will have its own experiences. Most of customers are >>commercial oriented so this is one reason we were reluctant to offer >>Greylisting in the past. >> >>Overall, for our test site, I'm seeing around 64-68% success rate >>(non-retries/total). Do you think we might see a higher success rate with >a >>1 hour block time at the expense of raising some support issues with "good" >>people trying to send mail with less than 1 hour retry frequencies? >> >> >>Comments? Experiences? >> >>Thanks >> >>-- >>Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. >>http://www.santronics.com >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Greylist-users mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/greylist-users > > >_______________________________________________ >Greylist-users mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/greylist-users > > >_______________________________________________ >Greylist-users mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/greylist-users