Re: Let's write a system admin friendly mail server packaging system
Thomas Goirand <thomas@goirand.fr> wrote:
> Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
>> Why would you like to go another way with mail servers?
> Because upstream doesn't want a conf.d folder, unfortunately, and that
Well, you can have something equal without upstream support by
concatenating conf.d snippets into one huge conf-file, like modutils did
(Andreas did describe this for exim already), and today we can also
trigger this on package upgrades.
> If you setup postfix + amavis, then postfix must relay emails to the
> incoming port of amavis, and amavis got to give the email back to
> postfix on another port. Both postfix and amavis have to be configured
> so they can talk to each other.
So far this is independent of third packages which is IMHO fine and
desirable. So far, this could be solved by a postfix-conf.d-snippet
shipped with the amavis package.
> Now, add dkimproxy in the loop. You have to configure dkimproxy to
> receive from postfix, relay to amavis, and amavis forwards to postfix.
That's pain, indeed, and should IMHO be avoided at all.
A clean way to conf this would be
* postfix ships to amavis
* amavis ships back to postfix
* postfix ships to dkimproxy
* dkimproxy ships back to postfix
I don't know if this is possible with postfix yet. The sendmail milter
approach is way cleaner regarding such stuff.
> This is a LOT less trivial than what you pretend.
That's not just less trivial, it's horrible :)
And this is probably one of the reasons why newer amavis is now able to
perform DKIM signing on it's own. So, this specific chaining should be
historic sooner or later.
Do you have another example where such a chaining is unavoidable?
> OF COURSE we do care about the performances of a mail server. Some ISP
> are running servers that are managing 100s of thousands of mail a day.
And of course they use distribution-default configured mail servers for
that :) scnr.
regards
Mario
--
() Ascii Ribbon Campaign
/\ Support plain text e-mail
Reply to: