Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Michael Tokarev (mjttls.msk.ru)
Date: Wed Apr 25 2001 - 13:35:10 CDT
Geoff Gibbs wrote:
> Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > Content_inspector was
> > half-implemented by Wietse, and it works THE SAME WAY, i.e. using
> > just same mechanisms, as content_filter works. The ONLY difference
> > is that after successeful "delivery" to filter/inspector, queue file
> > is not deleted as with filter, but marked as "inspected" and qmgr
> > continues delivery from beginning, just like if there was no
> > inspector record exists.
> Does this allow for the possibility of multiple inspectors being
> called up from Postfix, without the inspectors having to know
> about each other (although I can see a possibility here...)
> a spam filter
> the 'lets not virus scan this message' filter
> virus scanner A
> virus scanner B
> or something like that...
Well... yes. and content_filter also allows this already.
But the trick is that this utilizes other ability, probably
not what you mean when asking. For example, if you have
the above things as a commands named "spamf", "filt", "avA",
"avB", then you can use a shell script to glue them all together
in any reasonable (or unreasonable!) way you want, f.e.:
spamf $tmp || exit $EX_UNAVAILABLE
filt $tmp && exit 0
avA $tmp || exit ..
avB $tmp || exit
Well, there should be other code as well, like e.g.
cleaning up $tmp etc, but you should get the idea.
For a real example, see FILTER_README file -- with
content_INSPECTOR, just omit final sendmail call.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users