On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 02:53:47PM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> header and body checks are done by cleanup, not smtpd, so the advantage
> is already defeated [*].

why say things you know are untrue?

> > in short, you may as well use procmail to do this kind of filtering.
> > or maildrop. or mailagent. or similar programs. that's what i used
> > to do before body/header checks appeared in postfix.
>
> And what do the people who cannot run a filtering MDA do? For
> example, pre-sieve Cyrus IMAPd on a box with no local users bar the
> necessary service ones. I for one am glad Postfix has a way to help
> those people.

you misinterpret me. i never said that was a good or desirable thing.
i was pointing out that it was a step backwards.

> [*] just to confuse people, the advantage is not lost at all. smtpd
> is calling cleanup and rejecting inline AFAIK, and I can't see how
> specifying an alternate cleanup daemon is going to affect that -
> except that this cleanup daemon is not doing header/body checks and
> hence won't have anything to reject in the first place ;)

your suggestion was to receive the mail without body/header checks then,
depending upon recipient address, re-inject it back into postfix with
header/body checks enabled. the problem with this is that any reject at
that point would result in a (probably undeliverable) bounce message in
your postfix's queue (probably stuck there for 5 days or whatever your
maximal_queue_lifetime is).

i pointed out that there are ways of achieving the same goal (i.e.
optional application of header/body checks) that don't have the same
problem.

also, support for content filters is already in release versions of
postfix...no need to run experimental snapshots.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <castaz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]