[nycbug-talk] greylisting proxies?

[Jonathan]

On Oct 1, 2006, at 12:04 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote:

> I'm currently stuck with my decision to run qmail in many places. :)
HA HA

> So far none of the qmail implementations (all 2 of them) look very  
> good.
What have you looked at?

Have you seen this:
	http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/links.html

googling it, i found about 5.

anyways....

> I'm not real crazy about any of those really either.  Looks like  
> none can
> deal with SSL+SMTP-AUTH.
>
> I wonder how hard it would be to stick Postfix in front of Qmail?

I'm not sure about Postfix instead of qmail... but it would be very  
easy to stick Exim in front of qmail.  Googling this, I actually  
found a few people talking about using Exim in front of Postfix to  
get greylisting done.

There are about 6 greylisting implementations in Exim in various  
stages of stability.  Some are in C, while others make use of the  
embedded perl/python interpreter options.  Some use external  DBs  
(well 'real' dbs like pg, which you can have several boxes connect to  
in a cluster ) , while others use  local dbs ( bdb / dbm / etc )

I came across Exim a few years ago by chance- I knew postfix, Bob  
knew qmail , he said "lets both try something new".  He was my boss,  
so we did.

I love exim.  Its a great app: small , fast, and as secure as the  
rest.  It's the most (and easiest) configurable by far, and has  
plenty of hooks to run c filters, pipe to scripts/daemons , and the  
option to embed perl/python.  It's also ridiculously well maintained,  
and I can't remember when there was a critical security issue or  
bug.  The main disadvantage to running exim is that it is designed  
for immediate delivery, not queued mail -- but since you'd be using  
it as a proxy, you should never run into that.