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

LDA understanding

Expand Messages
  • Muhammad Yousuf Khan
    i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however i am using postfix
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
      i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
      that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however
      i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
      system user and virtual users with no issue. it receive email and drop
      it to virtual user directory or system user directory.
      so my question if postfix delivering the message to all the users then
      what is the need of procmail/LDA?
    • Stan Hoeppner
      ... The inbuilt Postfix delivery agent is very basic. It simply writes the message to the mailbox, either mbox or maildir format. It does not have delivery
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
        On 3/14/2013 4:44 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
        > i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
        > that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however
        > i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
        > system user and virtual users with no issue. it receive email and drop
        > it to virtual user directory or system user directory.
        > so my question if postfix delivering the message to all the users then
        > what is the need of procmail/LDA?

        The inbuilt Postfix delivery agent is very basic. It simply writes the
        message to the mailbox, either mbox or maildir format.

        It does not have delivery rules, nor a filtering language, and cannot
        sort messages into IMAP folders, etc. Procmail and Dovecot LDA can do
        these things, as well as others.

        --
        Stan
      • Jerry
        On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:26 +0500 ... Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses procmail . For relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
          On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:26 +0500
          Muhammad Yousuf Khan articulated:

          > i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
          > that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however
          > i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
          > system user and virtual users with no issue. it receive email and drop
          > it to virtual user directory or system user directory.
          > so my question if postfix delivering the message to all the users then
          > what is the need of procmail/LDA?

          Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
          fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
          what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
          decade.

          Just my 2¢ on the matter.

          --
          Jerry ✌
          postfix-user@...
          _____________________________________________________________________
          TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
          TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
        • Muhammad Yousuf Khan
          Thanks guys, i am using dovecot but i didn t knew in technical term we call it LDA :P. but i thought procmail delivers emails to the user-folder only, which i
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
            Thanks guys, i am using dovecot but i didn't knew in technical term we
            call it LDA :P. but i thought procmail delivers emails to the
            user-folder only, which i misunderstood , if dovecot, procmail and
            courier are LDAs as i perceive from you emails. so no problem in
            understanding the functionality of procmail as i am already using
            dovecot.

            Thanks,

            On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jerry <postfix-user@...> wrote:
            > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:26 +0500
            > Muhammad Yousuf Khan articulated:
            >
            >> i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
            >> that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email however
            >> i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
            >> system user and virtual users with no issue. it receive email and drop
            >> it to virtual user directory or system user directory.
            >> so my question if postfix delivering the message to all the users then
            >> what is the need of procmail/LDA?
            >
            > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
            > fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
            > what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
            > decade.
            >
            > Just my 2¢ on the matter.
            >
            > --
            > Jerry ✌
            > postfix-user@...
            > _____________________________________________________________________
            > TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
            > TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
            >
          • Andreas K.
            ... We have been using procmail on a relatively small set up (around 2000 users) for about a decade. Rock solid has never refused to do anything I wanted and I
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
              Στις , Jerry έγραψε:
              > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:26 +0500
              > Muhammad Yousuf Khan articulated:
              >
              >> i was just trying to understand LDA my understanding with postfix is
              >> that postfix is an MTA and procmail is an LDA to deliver email
              >> however
              >> i am using postfix alone and it is working great. it work with both
              >> system user and virtual users with no issue. it receive email and
              >> drop
              >> it to virtual user directory or system user directory.
              >> so my question if postfix delivering the message to all the users
              >> then
              >> what is the need of procmail/LDA?
              >
              > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
              > fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve.
              > From
              > what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
              > decade.
              >
              > Just my 2¢ on the matter.

              We have been using procmail on a relatively small set up (around 2000
              users)
              for about a decade. Rock solid has never refused to do anything I
              wanted and I
              can asuure you I have never used more than 5-10% of its abilities. I
              have been looking
              on Dovecot LDA recently just because of the Sieve language and its
              integration
              with many front ends (webmail apps etc).

              Andreas
            • Larry Stone
              ... I realize this gets away from Postfix per se but since LDAs are one of the things Postfix has to work with, it s marginally on-topic. I ve used Procmail
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Jerry wrote:

                > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
                > fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
                > what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
                > decade.

                I realize this gets away from Postfix per se but since LDAs are one of the
                things Postfix has to work with, it's marginally on-topic.

                I've used Procmail for years. That it hasn't been updated is irrelevant
                because it just works. Software does not always have to be new to be the
                right tool.

                On the other hand, I've only recently delved into Dovecot and then only as
                an IMAP/POP server. I had been using UW-IMAP, another software package
                that has not been updated in years but one that unfortunately does not
                "just work" for all cases (there is some issue between it and iOS Mail).
                IMHO, Dovecot suffers from being too much and it wasn't until I understood
                that there are three (maybe more?) distinct parts of Dovecot that operate
                somewhat independently (IMAP/POP, LDA, and authentication) that I went
                ahead implemented just the IMAP/POP piece dropping it in place of UW-IMAP
                with no conversion or client reconfiguration (other than SquirrelMail)
                required.

                -- Larry Stone
                lstone19@...
              • Kris Deugau
                ... Sieve can t call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a restricted
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                  Jerry wrote:
                  > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
                  > fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
                  > what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
                  > decade.

                  Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
                  inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                  restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder.

                  -kgd
                • Reindl Harald
                  ... usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken setup using a pre queue filter because it results in become a backscatter and you are usually
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                    Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
                    > Jerry wrote:
                    >> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
                    >> fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
                    >> what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
                    >> decade.
                    >
                    > Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
                    > inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                    > restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder

                    usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken
                    setup using a pre queue filter because it results in become
                    a backscatter and you are usually not permitted by law
                    accept a message with "250 OK" and drop it silent
                  • Ansgar Wiechers
                    ... That would be a post-queue filter. A pre-queue filter rejects, so you don t become a backscatter source. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- Abstractions save us
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                      On 2013-03-14 Reindl Harald wrote:
                      > Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
                      >> Jerry wrote:
                      >>> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For
                      >>> relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot
                      >>> and Sieve. From what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been
                      >>> maintained in over a decade.
                      >>
                      >> Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO
                      >> the inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                      >> restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly
                      >> harder
                      >
                      > usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken setup
                      > using a pre queue filter because it results in become a backscatter
                      > and you are usually not permitted by law accept a message with "250
                      > OK" and drop it silent

                      That would be a post-queue filter. A pre-queue filter rejects, so you
                      don't become a backscatter source.

                      Regards
                      Ansgar Wiechers
                      --
                      "Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning."
                      --Joel Spolsky
                    • Reindl Harald
                      ... sorry, yes, i reverted the terminology however, in the order of Sieve it would be way too late to call SpamAssassin because you CAN NOT reject at this time
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                        Am 14.03.2013 21:04, schrieb Ansgar Wiechers:
                        > On 2013-03-14 Reindl Harald wrote:
                        >> Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
                        >>> Jerry wrote:
                        >>>> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For
                        >>>> relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot
                        >>>> and Sieve. From what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been
                        >>>> maintained in over a decade.
                        >>>
                        >>> Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO
                        >>> the inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                        >>> restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly
                        >>> harder
                        >>
                        >> usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken setup
                        >> using a pre queue filter because it results in become a backscatter
                        >> and you are usually not permitted by law accept a message with "250
                        >> OK" and drop it silent
                        >
                        > That would be a post-queue filter. A pre-queue filter rejects, so you
                        > don't become a backscatter source

                        sorry, yes, i reverted the terminology

                        however, in the order of Sieve it would be way too late to
                        call SpamAssassin because you CAN NOT reject at this time
                        and spam has to be REJETED long before LDA / Sieve
                      • Kris Deugau
                        ... By harder I mean that you end up going to a great deal of trouble to properly deal with a message that user A really, really wants in their Inbox, and
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                          Reindl Harald wrote:
                          > Am 14.03.2013 17:07, schrieb Kris Deugau:
                          >> Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
                          >> inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                          >> restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder

                          By "harder" I mean that you end up going to a great deal of trouble to
                          properly deal with a message that user A really, really wants in their
                          Inbox, and which user B never ever EVER wants to see at all.

                          > usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken
                          > setup using a pre queue filter because it results in become
                          > a backscatter and you are usually not permitted by law
                          > accept a message with "250 OK" and drop it silent

                          Laws vary by region. So far as my personal mail handling goes, I also
                          want to divert eg mailing lists like this one to a mail folder *before*
                          calling an expensive content filter on a message that isn't spam.

                          Wearing my ISP mail admin hat, we don't use procmail, but the mail flow
                          would be entirely compatible; there are several stages of filtering and
                          each one can short-circuit the process and deliver the message (either
                          to the Inbox or the Spam folder), instead of having to run *everything*
                          through an expensive SpamAssassin scan.

                          -kgd
                        • Reindl Harald
                          ... forget the law if you would be my mailadmin and kill messages with SpamAssassin without reject them properly so a sane sender would get a bounce from it s
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                            Am 14.03.2013 21:31, schrieb Kris Deugau:
                            > Reindl Harald wrote:
                            >> usually sieve comes AFTER SpamAssassin because it is a broken
                            >> setup using a POST queue filter because it results in become
                            >> a backscatter and you are usually not permitted by law
                            >> accept a message with "250 OK" and drop it silent
                            >
                            > Laws vary by region. So far as my personal mail handling goes, I also
                            > want to divert eg mailing lists like this one to a mail folder *before*
                            > calling an expensive content filter on a message that isn't spam

                            forget the law

                            if you would be my mailadmin and kill messages with SpamAssassin
                            without reject them properly so a sane sender would get a bounce
                            from it's own mailserver i would kill you
                          • Tom Hendrikx
                            ... To complete this discussion, recent sieve standards/proposals have support for a generic interface to external spam and virus filters such as spamassassin,
                            Message 13 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
                              On 03/14/2013 05:07 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
                              > Jerry wrote:
                              >> Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
                              >> fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
                              >> what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
                              >> decade.
                              >
                              > Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
                              > inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                              > restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder.
                              >
                              > -kgd
                              >

                              To complete this discussion, recent sieve standards/proposals have
                              support for a generic interface to external spam and virus filters such
                              as spamassassin, called at sieve runtime (i.e. not decisions based on
                              earlier added headers), see [1].

                              Pigeonhole sieve for Dovecot [2] supports this. pigoenhole also has
                              experimental support calling arbitrary external programs in an
                              administrator-controlled way [3], which I use with great success to add
                              spamtrap messages to a database.

                              I hope this might convince people to try sieve once more as a
                              replacement for procmail ;)

                              [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5235
                              [2] http://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/
                              [3] http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Pigeonhole/Sieve/Plugins/Extprograms

                              --
                              Regards,
                              Tom
                            • James Griffin
                              [--------- Thu 14.Mar 13 at 12:07:14 -0400 Kris Deugau :---------] ... Personally, I still use procmail and use it to pipe mail through spamassassin, and also
                              Message 14 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
                                [--------- Thu 14.Mar'13 at 12:07:14 -0400 Kris Deugau :---------]

                                > Jerry wrote:
                                > > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For relatively
                                > > fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use Dovecot and Sieve. From
                                > > what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't even been maintained in over a
                                > > decade.
                                >
                                > Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO the
                                > inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                                > restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly harder.
                                >
                                > -kgd

                                Personally, I still use procmail and use it to pipe mail through
                                spamassassin, and also use it in conjuction with Dovecot LDA:

                                At the the top the procmailrc define the $DELIVER variable to
                                /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver .

                                Then a simple rule:

                                :0
                                * ^List-Id:.*some.list.id
                                | $DELIVER -m mailbox

                                The -m switch automatically create non-existing Maildir++ mailboxes
                                should the not already be present. I Think it needs to be enabled in one
                                of the configuration files for Dovecot.

                                It works nicely, but then i'm sure the Dovecot sieve implementations
                                work well too; i've not tried them yet.


                                Cheers, Jamie.

                                --
                                James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net
                                jmzgriffin at gmail.com

                                A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38
                              • Jerry
                                On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:27:59 +0000 ... Sieve will happily create any non-existing mailboxes. Sieve is far more robust than Procmail; however, you do have to do
                                Message 15 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
                                  On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:27:59 +0000
                                  James Griffin articulated:

                                  > [--------- Thu 14.Mar'13 at 12:07:14 -0400 Kris Deugau :---------]
                                  >
                                  > > Jerry wrote:
                                  > > > Personally, I have no idea why anyone uses "procmail". For
                                  > > > relatively fine grain sorting of mail upon delivery, I use
                                  > > > Dovecot and Sieve. From what I can ascertain, procmail hasn't
                                  > > > even been maintained in over a decade.
                                  > >
                                  > > Sieve can't call outside programs (eg SpamAssassin) by design. IMO
                                  > > the inability to call any external filtering programs (even from a
                                  > > restricted whitelist) makes overall mail filtering significantly
                                  > > harder.
                                  > >
                                  > > -kgd
                                  >
                                  > Personally, I still use procmail and use it to pipe mail through
                                  > spamassassin, and also use it in conjuction with Dovecot LDA:
                                  >
                                  > At the the top the procmailrc define the $DELIVER variable to
                                  > /usr/libexec/dovecot/deliver .
                                  >
                                  > Then a simple rule:
                                  >
                                  > :0
                                  > * ^List-Id:.*some.list.id
                                  > | $DELIVER -m mailbox
                                  >
                                  > The -m switch automatically create non-existing Maildir++ mailboxes
                                  > should the not already be present. I Think it needs to be enabled in
                                  > one of the configuration files for Dovecot.
                                  >
                                  > It works nicely, but then i'm sure the Dovecot sieve implementations
                                  > work well too; i've not tried them yet.

                                  Sieve will happily create any non-existing mailboxes. Sieve is far more
                                  robust than Procmail; however, you do have to do a bit of reading to
                                  fully grasp what it can do.

                                  --
                                  Jerry ✌
                                  postfix-user@...
                                  _____________________________________________________________________
                                  TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
                                  TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.