Bug#831456: ITP: policyd-rate-limit -- postfix policy daemon limiting the number of mails a user can send
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Valentin Samir <valentin.samir@crans.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Package name : policyd-rate-limit
Version : 0.5.0
Upstream Author : Valentin Samir <valentin.samir@crans.org>
* URL : https://pypi.python.org/pypi/policyd-rate-limit
* License : GPLv3
Programming Lang: Python
Description : postfix policy daemon limiting the number of mails a user can send
policyd-rate-limit is a simple postfix policy daemon written in python3
allowing to limit the number of mails a user can send over time.
Users are identified either via their sasl usernames or their ip addresses.
Limitation rules are a list of couples (number of mails, number of seconds).
If a user has sent more than number of mails in number of seconds,
a configurable error is returned to the user.
By limiting the number of mails sent by users, this package allow to mitigate
the effects of a compromised email user account: instead for starting to send thousand
of spams, the compromised account will be limited, by default, to 150 mails a day.
An option allows policyd-rate-limit to send daily mail reports about who reach
limits to allow abuse detection.
I use it on my personal server.
Once package, it is planned to use it on
https://www.crans.org (a french small ISP) smtp server.
The packages postfix-cluebringer and postfwd provides similar functionalities.
postfix-cluebringer is written in php and use an interface web for configuration.
It is also lacking of ipv6 support,
postfwd is written in perl and offer a lot of other advanced functionality and
is more like a firewall for postfix.
Both lack of the mail report support.
The package is uploaded to mentors.debian.net.
I do need sponsor for upload to the debian archive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=5Q9r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: