Re: header_checks question

From: Justin Piszcz (no email)
Date: Wed Sep 12 2007 - 16:36:53 EDT

  • Next message: Victor Duchovni: "Re: PATCH 2.3 zero length CN"

    On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, mouss wrote:

    > Justin Piszcz wrote:
    >> Makes sense for header checks, but for other checks, I like to separate out
    >> my whitelists and reject lists, I don't like having a single file for both.
    >
    > This is ok as far as you have a "binary decision".
    >
    > as soon as you want more complex stuff, a single map becomes less cumbersome.
    > examples:
    >
    > 1) suppose you want to whitelist 192.0.2.0/24 except 192.0.2.10 which youwant
    > to block (this is just an example). with two maps, you'll need to list
    > 192.0.2.10 twice. once with a dunno in the whitelist and once in the BL. when
    > you need to change the IPs, you'll need to look at both maps.
    >
    >
    > 2) consider this
    >
    > net1 ok
    > net2 grey_list
    > net3 strict_checks
    > ...
    >
    > Anyway, there is absoluetly no reason to mix pcre and regex. if you have pcre
    > support, then use pcre only. otherwise use regex.
    >

    Agree-- however, there are some nice regexp maps out their compiled for
    anti-spam purposes and I'd rather keep them as-is and for my own rules use
    pcre where I can and hash maps for other purposes.

    Justin.


  • Next message: Victor Duchovni: "Re: PATCH 2.3 zero length CN"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD