On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 01:08:14PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I don't see anything in this story that couldn't be done just as well with central control via SA at the MTA.
Part of this involves the backstory. 500+ lists that have never been in any way filtered, and many vocal list administrators concerned that having something imposed on them that they can't control will break things.
Personally, I think it's the MTA's job to reject malformed (eg. bad HELO) mail, it's SA's job to *tag* mail, and whatever the MTA hands off to should make the decision about whether to drop, quarantine, or deliver. That's a philosophical stance, and if it's impractical and I shouldn't think that way, then so be it. I'd like to hear some arguments before I change that view, though. My current solution has the advantage that for any complaining list admin, I can point that administrator to her/his own admin panel and say, "Play with these settings."
From a sysadmin perspective, I currently have three SA installs that have nearly-identical configs and one repeatedly-tweaked and well-documented mailman install. I'd rather not make one of my SA instances an oddball and drop that on my successor. In an ideal world there'd be only one SA instance, but we're not there yet. If you'd like to donate hardware to ibiblio so we can do that, let me know....
So basically what I'm saying is that my selfish POV makes me want a mailman that has nice anti-spam policies out of the box. If it requires an admin making decisions about which addresses to protect or whether to do it from within SA, mailman, or something else, then there's a problem.
I'm still scratching my head on how this bounced its way into my inbox, for example:
http://garp.metalab.unc.edu/backscatter-example.txt
How/where do I stop that?
Cheers,
Cristóbal Palmer ibiblio.org systems administrator