[Greylist-users] New user, new question

[Tom Haapanen]

I finally got greylisting running this morning, after probably eight 
hours of work.  Greylisting itself wasn't so bad, but I ended up 
upgrading to sendmail 8.12.10, and, the task that took more than half 
the time was getting a threaded perl built so that I could install 
Sendmail::Milter.  5.6.1 isn't threaded by default, and I could not, for 
the life of me, get 5.6.1 to build as threaded on FreeBSD 4.6.  
Eventually I upgraded to perl 5.8, got it to build as threaded (a 
stubborn one, it really wanted to build as unthreaded) and migrated my 
perl modules.  Whew!

So far so good -- the tempfails seem to be having the desired effect on 
many of the spammers.

My question comes from monitoring the relaydelay.pl output -- this one 
looked unusual:

=== 2004-01-04 10:45:09 ===
Stored Sender: <owner-autorace at LISTSERV.VT.EDU>
Passed Recipient: <******@MOTORSPORT.COM>
  Relay: listserv.vt.edu [198.82.161.192] - If_Addr: 64.235.98.4
  RelayIP: 198.82.161.192 - RelayName: listserv.vt.edu - RelayIdent:  - 
PossiblyForged: 0
  From: owner-autorace at LISTSERV.VT.EDU - To: *******
  InMailer: esmtp - OutMailer: local - QueueID: i04Fj9uu070021
  Email is known and block has expired.  Passing the mail.  rowid: 565
  IN EOM CALLBACK - PrivData: 
564,565<owner-autorace at LISTSERV.VT.EDU><******@MOTORSPORT.COM>
Argument "564,565" isn't numeric in numeric gt (>) at 
/usr/local/sbin/relaydelay.pl line 381.
  * Mail successfully processed.  Incremented passed count on rowid 564.
  * Mail successfully processed.  Incremented passed count on rowid 565.

I saw a few of these -- why both the 564 and 565?  Is this normal?

Thanks for a great piece of software -- and the idea in the first place,

Tom Haapanen
tomh at motorsport.com