From: Sebastian Hagedorn
Date: 2006-07-24 03:50:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Experiences with caching and milter-ahead
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
--On 20. Juli 2006 18:38:43 +0200 Anthony Howe <email@example.com> wrote:
> Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
>> Thanks, that's good to know. I've decreased our reject-ttl to one hour,
>> but I've left the accept-ttl at its default of one week. The way I see
>> it a false positive doesn't do that much harm, i.e. if a previously
>> valid address has been disabled in the meantime it might cause a few
>> backscatter bounces, but that seems acceptable to me.
> You have to watch out for the inverse case. You receive mail for a new
> address that is rejected BEFORE the address has been created. IN that
> case the new address cannot receive mail until the accept-ttl for teh
> entry expires, the cache is discarded, or experimental SMTP session
> commands are issued to delete individual entries (the last requires
> specially built sendmail & libmilter versions).
I don't understand. Why would the *accept*-ttl be relevant there? Surely=20
this should be controlled by the reject-ttl!?
BTW, I modified the script milter-cachedump.pl in contrib, so that it can=20
be used to delete entries from the cache. I could provide that in case=20
anyone's interested ...
.:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (Geb=E4ude 52), Zimmer 18.:.
Zentrum f=FCr angewandte Informatik - Universit=E4tsweiter Service RRZK
.:.Universit=E4t zu K=F6ln / Cologne University - Tel. +49-221-478-5587.:.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Copyright 2009, 2012 by SnertSoft. All rights reserved.