Re: Per-user receive rate controls

2001-10-03 Thread Jeremy Howard
Justin Miller wrote: I've had good luck with smtp-poplock -- the only issue, and it took me a while to figure out, was that when syslog restarted weekly (after log rotation), the auth daemon would die since the fifo was cut. Now I just tail imapd.log directly. My plan to avoid this pr

Re: Per-user receive rate controls

2001-10-03 Thread Justin R. Miller
Thus spake Chris Audley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I don't know how pop-before-smtp.pl is implemented, but if you can get > it to read from a named pipe you can set up a separate channel from > syslog to the perl script. I've had good luck with smtp-poplock -- the only issue, and it took me a while

Re: Per-user receive rate controls

2001-10-03 Thread Jeremy Howard
Chris Audley wrote: > Create a named pipe in some appropriate location such as /var/local for the > perl script to read from, > > mkfifo /var/local/lmtpmon > > Then add an entry to the syslog.conf file to send mail.info messages to the > pipe > separate from the entry currently sending mail.no

Re: Per-user receive rate controls

2001-10-03 Thread Chris Audley
> Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > > Something like pop-before-smtp.pl will do the trick: It will tail the > > maillog and then you can build an in memory database (a queue) that > > stores recipients, number of mails they recieved and timestamps. > > > Nice--I'll do this, at least until I get around to

Re: Per-user receive rate controls

2001-10-03 Thread Jeremy Howard
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:15:23PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote: > > What I'd like to do is avoid this happening in the future. I've manually > > added this address with REJECT to check_client_access for now. Now what I'd > > You mean check_recipient_access? > Yes I do--sor

Re: Per-user receive rate controls

2001-10-02 Thread Jeremy Howard
Michael Fair wrote: > If you do it any later then the initial attempt to > send mail into the users inbox you have not gained > anything as the mail has already gone through the > pipeline. This is exactly right in a sense... but it's OK to _catch_ it later in the pipeline, and then as soon as so

Re: Per-user receive rate controls

2001-10-02 Thread Michael Fair
This is clearly something that you will want to "add" to Postfix. If you do it any later then the initial attempt to send mail into the users inbox you have not gained anything as the mail has already gone through the pipeline. If you are truly trying to stop resource consumption (which it seems