[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 1521
From: Grant Taylor
Date: 2007-04-01 18:46:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Does such a milter exist...

Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support

On 04/01/07 01:10, Anthony Howe wrote:
> Using a script with milter-cli, you wouldn't need to. I was just saying 
> you could do it without a milter in sendmail if you wanted to go that route.


> At least with milter-cli you can test the concept first then if you 
> really like it, pester me for a milter.

I'll do some looking in to such.

> Normally it is { IP, MAIL, RCPT }, though milter-gris allows other combos.


> Hmm. milter-group...

Are you starting to think that this could be a worth while milter?  This 
is the first time that I have seen any reference to milter-group???

> Target                                          Member of group
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> milter-group-to:fluffy-bunnies.com		pets, staff, bofh
> milter-group-to:postmaster@			bofh, support
> milter-group-to:abuse@			support
> milter-group-from:prez@vicious-bunny-rabbit.com	phb
> milter-group-connect:192.168			staff, marketing

> Not sure the worth of -connect or -from variants and the precedence if 
> used, but its an idea.

I would think that it would be worth while to be able to white / black 
list based on the from address.  I don't know that connect would be all 
that helpfully, though it may be worth it too if it is easy to implement.

> OK. If you do this during RCPT phase, then the first RCPT issued defines 
> the group and subsequent RCPT have to be members or rejected. My 
> thoughts on it were to collect the RCPT and then at DATA reject (or 
> temp.fail) the DATA command if all RCPT were not members of the same group.

I would rather do this during the RCPT phase so that all members of the 
same group would be able to receive the message while others would have 
to be re-delivered.

> In the case of postmaster/abuse I would have collected the whole list 
> and at DATA if either of those appears with any other 
> non-postmaster/abuse address, then temp.fail/reject.

Will you please explain why you would want to handle postmaster / abuse 
any different than other recipients?

> How can you know the group before you get the first recipient?

You do not know the group until you receive the first recipient. 
Another way to say it would be to say that the first recipient decides 
the group(s).

> Yes. But the grey-list criteria might have been sufficient.

This would be used in addition to grey listing.  My main motivation for 
this is for individuals to optionally have their own SA settings that 
would fall back to the default if there were multiple recipients.  Or at 
least that is what made me think about this.

Grant. . . .

Lists Index Date Thread Search