Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Fwd: Re: Debian extra modules

[Sven Eckelmann <sven.eckelmann@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3040 bytes --]

Marek Lindner wrote:
> That is a qood question. It is self-contained as well but I don't think it
> makes much sense bringing it into staging as it is just a "hack".  :)
> I'm not sure what the best path forward might be. Does it hurt keeping it
>  the way it is ?
Sry, doesn't want to upset you, but wanted to say that batgat isn't a complete 
solution like batman-adv, but an extension to reduce the load on the gateway. 
I don't think that it would hurt at the moment to leave it as it is. Have not 
attended Linux Plumber Conf 2009 - so don't know what was discussed there. As 
co-maintainer (Holger is the actual maintainer) of that package in Debian it 
doesn't hurt me at the moment.

> > Parts which are important:
> >  * TODO list for staging inside batman-adv folder
> >  * removed compat.h and remaining LINUX_VERSION_CODE (net_device_ops,
> >    unregister_chrdev)
> >  * clean Makefile and Kconfig
> >  * anyone who says how the further development should be done
> >  * anyone who sends the patch to Greg (probably Marek)
> 
> I think most of the things listed here are already done. It just needs to
>  come together. I'm confident that this will happen soon.
I categorized them in my head under todo because nothing of it is currently 
visible to the user. So some parts could be marked as "put them in the right 
place".

[...]
> The postifx setup is quite simple at the moment: It rejects all unknown /
> unregistered mail. Greylisting is not in place yet. I quickly ran pflogsumm
>  to give you an impression:
> 
> Per-Day Traffic Summary
>     date          received  delivered   deferred    bounced     rejected
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Sep 27 2009       110        107        153         16       4874
>     Sep 28 2009       170        855        298         56       6894
>     Sep 29 2009       229       1235        379         90       6757
>     Sep 30 2009       176        525        420         38       7477
>     Oct  1 2009       187        222        377         20       7913
>     Oct  2 2009       132        132        414         17       8086
>     Oct  3 2009       112        117        374         18       7790
>     Oct  4 2009       128        658        294         42       6158
>     Oct  5 2009       243       1634        509         97       7657
> 
> But I tend to agree with you: We might have to face the fact that we have
>  to improve the SPAM filter on our end and open the list. As a first step
>  we could install greylisting and have a bunch of moderators to see how
>  that goes.
Lets hope that greylisting would do a good job here as it is quite easy to 
setup (just done that for exim using greylistd - so cannot say that it is also 
that easy for postfix, but there is a package called postgrey). I never feel 
real happy about the filtering of spamassassines bayesian analysis as it marks 
important mails for me as spam from time to time.

Best regards,
	Sven

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]