CentOS - Apr 2016 - Postgrey on CentOS 6

Hi,

I administer a postfix mail server on CentOS 6.
Now I want to setup another with similar configuration.

But the postgrey package is no longer available in Epel
for this CentOS release as I have seen now:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/postgrey/

1. Will I have to make an upgrade of the existing mail server
   to get security patches again or is it not critical to
   use the old package?

2. Can you give advice for an alternative setup 
   of greylisting for postfix on CentOS 6?

Cheers,

	Gabriele
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160422/7ff64d79/attachment-0001.sig>

On 23/04/16 02:13, Gabriele Pohl wrote:
> I administer a postfix mail server on CentOS 6.
> Now I want to setup another with similar configuration.
> 
> But the postgrey package is no longer available in Epel
> for this CentOS release as I have seen now:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/postgrey/
> 
> 1. Will I have to make an upgrade of the existing mail server
>    to get security patches again or is it not critical to
>    use the old package?
You will have to get advice from the epel peopel for support for postgrey.
> 2. Can you give advice for an alternative setup 
>    of greylisting for postfix on CentOS 6?
Postgrey is largely obsoleted by postscreen which comes with postfix
versions 2.8 and up.  You can get the latest postfix (including
postscreen) for CentOS 6 from GhettoForge (www.ghettoforge.org).


Peter

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160423/aab222b0/attachment-0001.sig>

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 02:23:28 +1200
Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote:
> On 23/04/16 02:13, Gabriele Pohl wrote:
> > I administer a postfix mail server on CentOS 6.
> > Now I want to setup another with similar configuration.
> > 
> > But the postgrey package is no longer available in Epel
> > for this CentOS release as I have seen now:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/postgrey/
> > 
> > 2. Can you give advice for an alternative setup 
> >    of greylisting for postfix on CentOS 6?  
> 
> Postgrey is largely obsoleted by postscreen which comes with postfix
> versions 2.8 and up.  You can get the latest postfix (including
> postscreen) for CentOS 6 from GhettoForge (www.ghettoforge.org).
Thanks for your help and so quickly :)

I decided to try with current version of postgrey
from projects github repository.
https://github.com/schweikert/postgrey/releases/tag/version-1.36
as I want to avoid using more 3rd party repos.

Doing the first steps in manual installation
(create directory and user) I found out, 
that I lack from knowledge on "ls" output..

There is a difference that I don't understand.

What does the "." at the right side 
of the attributes list mean?

directory manually created on the shell:
drwxr-x--x 2 postgrey postfix 4096 Apr 22 17:19 /var/spool/postfix/postgrey/

created by package installation:
drwxr-x--x. 2 postgrey postfix 4096 Apr 13 16:23 /var/spool/postfix/postgrey

I used this commands to create the first one

# mkdir /var/spool/postfix/postgrey
# chmod 751 /var/spool/postfix/postgrey
# groupadd --gid 493 postgrey
# useradd --system --gid 493 --uid 493 --home /var/spool/postfix/postgrey -M
--shell /sbin/nologin postgrey
# chown postgrey /var/spool/postfix/postgrey
# chgrp postfix /var/spool/postfix/postgrey

Can you give explanation what is causing the difference
compared to the package created directory?

Gabriele
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160422/bbfb589b/attachment-0001.sig>