Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   CentOS (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/)
-   -   using new sysconfig file (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/123614-using-new-sysconfig-file.html)

Kai Schaetzl 07-12-2008 04:09 PM

using new sysconfig file
 
I installed postgrey from rpmforge and wanted to use sysconfig to change
options instead of overwriting the init file. However, I get a weird
warning from postgrey. I'm not sure if this is a postgrey quirk or I use
sysconfig the wrong way.

/etc/sysconfig/postgrey:
OPTIONS="--unix=/var/spool/postfix/postgrey/socket --delay=660"

/etc/rc.d/init.d/postgrey:
OPTIONS="--unix=$SOCKET --delay=660"

# Source an auxiliary options file if we have one, and pick up OPTIONS,
if [ -r /etc/sysconfig/$prog ]; then
. /etc/sysconfig/$prog
fi

Error:
" invalid for option delay (number expected)

(The quote marks are necessary!)

Using the additional option directly in the init file works just fine.

Kai

--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Ian Blackwell 07-12-2008 11:04 PM

using new sysconfig file
 
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
I installed postgrey from rpmforge and wanted to use sysconfig to change
options instead of overwriting the init file. However, I get a weird
warning from postgrey. I'm not sure if this is a postgrey quirk or I use
sysconfig the wrong way.


/etc/sysconfig/postgrey:
OPTIONS="--unix=/var/spool/postfix/postgrey/socket --delay=660"



Hi Kai,

I got similar errors by corrupting my /etc/sysconfig/postgrey file, by
putting text into the delay value - i.e. I replaced 660 with 66O. I
suggest you recreate the file (from scratch) to make sure you haven't
got some odd binary data in their somehow (null's?).


BTW: Postgrey recommend a maximum delay of 300. Is there a reason
you're using 660?


Ian
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Kai Schaetzl 07-13-2008 11:31 AM

using new sysconfig file
 
Ian Blackwell wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:34:51 +0930:

> I got similar errors by corrupting my /etc/sysconfig/postgrey file, by
> putting text into the delay value - i.e. I replaced 660 with 66O. I
> suggest you recreate the file (from scratch) to make sure you haven't
> got some odd binary data in their somehow (null's?).

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.

>
> 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. 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.

Kai

--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Ian Blackwell 07-13-2008 10:42 PM

using new sysconfig file
 
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



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.