Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Postfix->SA versus Postfix->Amavis-new->SA ?

Expand Messages
  • Jan Houtsma
    ... Thanks (both), So where would you do for example all the smtpd_recipient_restrictions like RBL checks, reject_unverified_(sender|recipient) etc.. Would
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Martinec wrote:
      > Jan,
      >> I read on this mailinglist a lot of messages of people using
      >> amavis-new as intermediate layer between postfix and SA. Does this
      >> give me additional advantages to use amavis-new opposed to calling
      >> SA directly from master.cf? I don't use any virusscan or other
      >> filters besides some restriction and RBL settings in main.cf.
      > Some possible reasons (besides what Noel wrote):
      > - true by-recipient settings and handling of: spam score limits, quarantining
      > options, header edits, appending address extensions based on contents,
      > spam_lovers, blacklisting ... (splitting mail if necessary), while still
      > staying with a 'one-SA call per message' paradigm;
      > - very careful handling of expected and unexpected problems,
      > informative error reporting helps detecting problems and troubleshooting,
      > guided by the motto: "mail must not be lost or garbled when trouble strikes,
      > and trouble should not go by undetected";
      > - selective controls on bounces: suppress bounces to high scoring spam
      > (and viruses), but lets you configure a range of 'questionable' spam scores
      > (between kill level and spam_dsn_cutoff_level) where bounces may still
      > be sent (selectively enabled/disabled by a sending domain if necessary);
      > these bounces are more informative than the ones provided by MTA;
      > - optional checks for 'banned' mail parts, checking for header validity,
      > easy later enabling of virus checking (but decoding and virus checking
      > may be disabled completely, not even loading-in code for these);
      > - optional pen-pals database can reduce spam score of incoming
      > replies to previous mail as sent in the opposite (outgoing) direction,
      > cutting down a chance of false positives;
      > - quarantining, and releasing from a quarantine; archival options;
      > optional logging and/or quarantining to SQL;
      > - logging to syslog (at level 0) carries the most relevant information
      > about each message in one entry per message (or one entry per recipient)
      > (configurable template), facilitating greping for 'where is my lost mail'
      > before having to plunge into analyzing a Postfix log;
      > - optional statistics database collects snmp-like counters
      > (displayed by amavisd-agent utility);
      > - can supply p0f-based information to SA about a sending-host's
      > operating system, which SA can use in rules, e.g. in BOTNET rules.
      > (the speed should be about same as your current solution,
      > possibly a trifle faster due to a cache of recent check results,
      > and efficient use of SMTP transfers)
      > Mark

      Thanks (both),

      So where would you do for example all the smtpd_recipient_restrictions
      like RBL checks, reject_unverified_(sender|recipient) etc.. Would that
      be at the postfix level (main.cf), amavisd-new level or spamassassin
      level? I would think at the postfix level (the faster you detect the
      better)? Are there recommendation documents/references that address
      these kind of dilemmas?

      Thanks, jan
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.