On 26 September 2007, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Liviu Daia wrote:
>
> > Same, 28 minutes later:
> >
> > Sep 25 18:42:52 ns1 postfix-localhost/smtpd[13055]: 72BCD142A7:
> > client=unknown[212.239.40.101]
> > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/cleanup[21622]: 72BCD142A7: message-id=<[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>
> > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/qmgr[1554]: 72BCD142A7: from=<[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>, size=3724, nrcpt=2 (queue active)
> > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/pipe[25075]: 72BCD142A7: to=<[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>, relay=uucpz, delay=0.81, delays=0.75/0.01/0/0.05, dsn=2.0.0,
> > status=sent (delivered via uucpz service)
> > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/local[7260]: 72BCD142A7: to=<[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>, relay=local, delay=1, delays=0.75/0.01/0/0.24, dsn=2.0.0,
> > status=sent (delivered to command: /usr/local/sbin/gather_stats.pl
> > /usr/local/share/Mail_stats)
> > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/qmgr[1554]: 72BCD142A7: removed
> >
> > Should I have used spamd, the first two copies would have been
> > discarded, but the third would have passed.
>
> Not good example. As that would still hit spamd (default 25 minutes
> and your earlier one was too fast). Now it is whitelisted.
>
> Do you have a fourth email sent? (Which will have passed.)
Not at hand, but I haven't been looking for one either. Does spamd
really behave like that? That is, ignore retries during the greylisting
period, and whitelist messages only on subsequent attempts?
Regards,
Liviu Daia
--
Dr. Liviu Daia http://www.imar.ro/~daia
