On 26 September 2007, Jeremy C. Reed  wrote:

quoted text
> 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=<20070925150257.7239.qmail@web05.aziendeitalia.com>

> > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/qmgr[1554]: 72BCD142A7: from=, size=3724, nrcpt=2 (queue active)

> > Sep 25 18:42:53 ns1 postfix/pipe[25075]: 72BCD142A7: to=, 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=, 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