215789Re: Feature request: MTA string in policy proto
- Feb 28, 2007On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:33:15PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> As Wietse said, you can use different ports (or IPs but ther is not much reasonThe CON is:
> to use different IPs when you can use diffrent ports). so it would be good to
> support multiple instances of policyd-weight, each with its config file.
> you can also add an "IP -> MTA" mapping, so that a single instance can work
> with multiple MTAs talking from different IPs.
This is simply a hack and not a solution.
A solution would be on protocol level.
What's more sane in the scope of a "Policy Proto":
- a server who expects a certain string configured by the client
- a server who has to open ugly ports to differenciate between stuff
With free of choice attributes we wouldn't have to discuss about this.
Each future policy server can adapt to different types of MTA without
such an ugly port hack.
Also with the different ports hack I run into debug troubles as debug
creates a port one higher than default port (yes, that my problem and not
that of others ;-).
As for the moment I think I will go with mta_string=missing|postfix|exim.
I don't see changes in the Policy Proto for the future.
If there will be ever appear an mta_string in the policy proto, then I
have to catch up. Neither do I seriously expect that postfix will ever
send mta_string=exim. Unfortunately I have to expect now, but I want
to save myself from ugly work and I prefer sane|reasonable concepts.
Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
- << Previous post in topic