Paul Iadonisi wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 19:23, Mark wrote:
[snip]
Actually, I recently wrote an SRS socket map daemon, for sendmail
8.13.x, which makes signing/reverting SRS as quick as a socket call
lookup. If people are interested, I will upload that too.
Woohoo! Please do! ;-)
I've been wanting to do that since I saw how neatly SES/SRS fits
into this new socket map way of doing things. Seems much lighter
weight than a milter. (And, of course, a milter *can't* be used for
this since you can't change the MAIL FROM with a milter, AFAIK.)
True; although I heard there are patches (Sendmail::Pmilter makes optionally
uses of it, I believe).
Anyhow, given that I haven't done a lot of significant programming
lately, I kind of stalled on it. I'd love to see this, as -- and
please don't take this the wrong way -- my reaction to you're use of
a program map in your implementation of SES was: ICK. ;-) But I do
understand that it was more a proof of concept. The possibility of
doing pretty much the same thing with either a patch or socket map
has always been there.
At the time, when all sendmail offered was the program map to accomplish
such complex tasks, they had already announced the advent of the new socket
map; so it was only a matter of time. :)
One question: is it C? (Oh, please, please, say yes.)
For the moment, the socketmap daemon is still in Perl. But it is very
stable, and plenty fast. Only starting a new Perl process, which each
program map call, is expensive; but Perl itself can sign about 8,000
addresses per second (AMD 64):
15 wallclock secs (12.09 usr + 0.62 sys = 12.71 CPU) @ 7867.24/s (n=100000)
That is fast enough for me. :)
I am not unwilling to do one in C, if people really, really want it; as soon
as I figured out which lib to go with. :) (libsrs? libsrs2?). I'll doubt
you'll get much of a useful speed improvement, though. Things are at my
regular page:
http://asarian-host.net/srs/sendmailsrs.htm
Cheers,
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx