Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Thanks for the hint. It was the CRLF sequence from creating the file on a > Windows machine. I haven't had a problem with this in a long time, bash > scripts etc. work fine, no matter if LF or CRLF is used, but it seems to > make a difference when including a file. > > Glad to hear :-) >> BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason >> you're using 660? >> > > It's the default and been the default since postgrey saw the light of day, > but I wouldn't deem it "recommended". ;-) I've been doing greylisting > (with sendmail) for many years and started out with ten minutes. > You're history with greylisting eclipses my recent foray into the field, so I bow to your experience. I took the 300 from the CentOS HowTo where they write:- <quote>Setting your delay to values larger than 300 Seconds ( 5 Minutes ) is really not recommended.</quote> > This has > proven to be quite successful, but there is a growing number of spammers > that come back after exactly ten minutes, so I'm moving it up to 11 > minutes on new machines. I doubt that 5 minutes gives any advantage in > terms of faster turnaround time for ham messages. Most MTAs retry after 15 > or 30 minutes, I would actually consider an MTA that retries after only 5 > minutes a bit rude. > > I started my delay at 60 seconds as the how-to suggests, and have moved it up to 300 now. If your experience suggests 660, then I'll try that next ;-) Anything to kill Spam is cool in my book 8-) Ian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080714/d7ca1252/attachment-0005.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3617 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080714/d7ca1252/attachment-0005.bin>