also sprach Craig Sanders <email@example.com> [2004.11.10.1014 +0100]: > > I agree. But exim can do it. And even though this is the LDA > > part of it, postfix also includes an LDA, which is just not up > > to speed. > > and postfix can do it too. No, it cannot, unless you use spamassassin as the LDA, which is deprecated. Exim can use multiple sequential filters as part of the LDA (which are all run as the user). > postfix doesn't do it the same way as exim because postfix is not > a single monolithic process. Stop harping on that and respond to my points, if at all. Even a modular architecture can support filters as part of the LDA; Postfix does not. > > ... not manageable... > > of course not. but a) it works, and b) it doesn't have to be > "manageable", .forward files are not a system-wide setting, they > are a per user thing. So you suggest .forward files for a machine hosting about 1700 Windows users? > if you want it to run for every user without each user having to > do custom configuration, then use procmail as the LDA and create > a rule in /etc/procmailrc. problem solved. If you object to exim because of its monolithic setuid nature, how can you possibly advocate procmail? Sure, it's run as the user. But it's a bloody performance hog. Try that with 1700 users and about 130 to 200 mails per minute, and you'll find that it does not work. > if you don't care about using per-user settings in SA, then just > use a content filter and you'll get SA checking on ALL mail, not > just on locally-delivered mail. again, problem solved. IMO, this > is the best way to do it. If you do SA on a system-wide basis, the auto-whitelisting feature is a problem, and Bayesian filtering is basically useless. > but if the question you are asking is "i want postfix to work > exactly the same as exim", then you'll never get an answer. I did not say so. > *ALL* mail is both incoming AND outgoing. Which (sensible) MTA does not do it this way? > > I am challenging you. > > challenging me to do what? To consider that, in fact, postfix is not the best for all situations. > repeat after me: an MTA is not an LDA. use the right tool for the > job. I believe I said before that I completely agree. This is not the issue being discussed. > > I cheated. It's in there and marked 'impossible'. Exim can do > > it. > > i doubt if it's impossible. You are making a fool of yourself. > in short, the answer is "that's not a useful question". routing > based on solely the From: address is inherently broken. Did I say that the From address was the only feature to base routing on? Also you (and Wietse) are failing to see the value for store-and-forward relays. Anyway, this is pointless. You just read my last post on the issue. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Description: Digital signature