Why is postgrey-1.31 masked? [SOLVED]

Cyberwizzard · Apprentice Joined: 02 Apr 2004 Posts: 244 Location: Norway

Hi,

I wanted the new whitelist from postgrey 1.31 which is masked in portage along with a number of its dependencies... I tried searching the bug system but I can't find why its masked. Is it untested or is there something wrong with it?

drwook · Veteran Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 1324 Location: London

Cyberwizzard · Apprentice Joined: 02 Apr 2004 Posts: 244 Location: Norway

kk, thanks - will add it to our secondary mail server and see how its holding up

kashani · Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject:

If you have more than one mail server I highly suggest using a unified greylisting system. You can do this one of two ways.

1. Put postgrey on a single server and change the bind address to the IP of the server. Then allow other servers to use this single postgrey instance. If the Postgrey instance dies I'm not sure how the other mail servers handle it.
2. Each server runs sqlgrey locally and they connect to a single db on one of the servers. IIRC when sqlgrey can not reach the db it'll allow all email. You might need to make sure that only one instance of sqlgrey is doing db cleanup.

A number of years ago I can two mail servers and decided to install postgrey on each. A mail would reach server-1 and get rejected with the temp error. It would then retry server-2 at some point and get a reject error. Then it would wait a long time to try either server again delaying mail much longer than in the case of a single greylisting instance.

kashani
_________________
Will personally fix your server in exchange for motorcycle related shop tools in good shape.

Cyberwizzard · Apprentice Joined: 02 Apr 2004 Posts: 244 Location: Norway

Thanks for the tip

As it is the system is up and running for a half year now and it works great (perhaps some server have issues but no real problems so far). Is there a guide somewhere to set up the sqlgrey or postgrey on 2 servers like that?