From: Anthony Howe
Date: 2004-11-29 10:56:18 -0500
Subject: Re: milter-mole
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
April Lorenzen wrote:
> The admin is still the expert - he determines the mix of factors and
> scoring that fits his own standards, by using a web interface to set how
> his queries will be processed by the Outbound Index. Anthony, as a milter
> writer, has the view that all configuration should be done in the milter,
> and one can alter and update the milter if one wants to make changes.
Thats not entirely accurate. April and I had long discussions about
interfaces and configuration issues (essentially server implementation
vs. client implementation and what must pass between).
My objective was to take Petru Paler's original protocol and make a
independant client/server protocol that did not impose server
implementation on the client side. This was so as a milter writer I
could write something that could be used with one or more SIQ supporting
reputation services. Also as a mail administrator, I wanted the milter
implementation to be as automated as possible (I've never played with
the Outbound Index interface to tweak things) chosing to just use the
What can be configured in milter-siq is simply the thresholds at which
to accept, tag, reject, and/or discard a message. I wanted the client
side to have at least that much control. The rest of any tweaking
depends on the service(s) used, such as Outbound Index that provides a
web front-end on the server for each client to make scoring adjustments.
Also the protocol should provide sufficient enough information (4 scores
in this draft) such that a client like milter-siq could make some what
more complex judgements or threshold corrections if necessary.
The SIQ UDP response has room for more things, BUT defining what things
should go into that response packet that would be of interest to the
vast majority of reputation services is where I figured would be too
difficult to get concensus, so I opted for the basics.
Since the UDP packet size is limited as to what can be given back to a
client, the HTTP quert/response format is provided as a means of getting
more detailed data concerning the query. HTTP using X- extension headers
allows for richer response. Though the SIQ protocol only defines a basic
set, leaving room for server specific extensions.
> The SIQ protocol is flexible enough to support either type of
> implementation - "dumb" milter / query client, or "dumb" query
Yes. "dumb" client works very well, I'm not sure though if the basic
protocol provides sufficient enough information to allow for "dumb"
servers that grab a data set and send it back. A server is still
required to do some additional work to compute scores for the client (at
least when using UDP packets as discussed above).
Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78
7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus
"Once...we were here." - Last of The Mohicans
Copyright 2009, 2012 by SnertSoft. All rights reserved.