Spam Filter ISP Support Forum

  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Bug?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Bug?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
kspare View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 26 January 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kspare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Bug?
    Posted: 23 November 2005 at 9:39am

I noticed this morning that if an IP is whitelisted it also bypasses the connection limit.

IE, I limit 10 connections per ip, but if an ip is whitelisted it can have unlimited?

Is this meant to be like this?

Back to Top
LogSat View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LogSat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 November 2005 at 10:16am
That is by design. Whitelisting does just that, bypass *all* of SpamFilter rules. The only exception is the antivirus filter.
Roberto Franceschetti

LogSat Software

Spam Filter ISP
Back to Top
kspare View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 26 January 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kspare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 November 2005 at 10:19am
anyway to not bypass the connection limit rule? I don't see why you would want this?
Back to Top
LogSat View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LogSat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 November 2005 at 7:25am
No, currently that is not possible. The whitelist was created as certain domains/users do not want to have their email filtered. If we were to "skip" that specific rule for the whitelist, there will be *many* more admins who'd want it back as they'll have angry customers who now won't be able to receive large emails. That would also open the way to generate more requests to bypass other filters as well, and would make things rather confusing as there will be some filters to which the whitelist applies and others where it won't.

The only solution will be to allow further customizations to the filters, and we're working on that...
Roberto Franceschetti

LogSat Software

Spam Filter ISP
Back to Top
kspare View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 26 January 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kspare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 November 2005 at 10:18am
ya lost me there, how does the connection limits rules affect receiving large emails?
Back to Top
kspare View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 26 January 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kspare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 November 2005 at 10:21am

My whole point here is in the configuration panel I have it set for max connections per ip set to 10.

Just because an ip is whitelisted doesn't mean it should be allowed to exceed the max allowed connections. I've had to whitelist some large isps in my area because of alot of the emails we recieve, so does this mean that they will exceed the max connections limit? That doesn't make any sense. Trusted or not, I only want 10 connections per ip. It's kind of defeating the rule....

Back to Top
Marco View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 June 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Marco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 3:32am

I think Roberto means that large emails take time to finish, taking up more connections when concurrent mails are beeing sent by same source ip. Question is: which conn gets dropped when the limit is reached? the last one in, or the one that was open the longest.

If the longest open connection gets dropped then you'd have problems sending large attachments.

 

 

Anyone who is capable of getting himself made president, should on no account be allowed to do the job. D.Adams
Back to Top
LogSat View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4065
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LogSat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 November 2005 at 11:17am

I was actually mistaken and talked about the wrong filter (max message size instead of the max connection limit). However the reply still stands. The whitelist will overwrite everything except the anti-virus filter. The reasoning is the same. Admins may have a connection limit set, but for example may not want to impose that limit to their secondary MX server, or their customer's SMTP server. In any case, if we were to impose the connection limit on whitelisted IPs as well, we'd always have customers who would then say "my whitelist is supposed to bypass all filters, why are certain filters not affected by it?"

Again, the only solution will be to have more flexibility in the filtering rules.

Roberto Franceschetti

LogSat Software

Spam Filter ISP
Back to Top
kspare View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 26 January 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kspare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 November 2005 at 1:15am

Since when is a connection limit a filter?

If this will be resolved in an upcoming release that will allow us to edit how our filters work I guess it's not big deal.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.