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

Re: LDA understanding

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 15 , Mar 14, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        [--------- 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 11 of 15 , Mar 15, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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.