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

RE: Postfix not speaking with amavis?

Expand Messages
  • Postfix
    ... the deferred queue that awaits processing by the filter. ... Thanks, I am misunderstanding how postfix handles mail. I had assumed incoming mail is put
    Message 1 of 19 , May 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Wietse Venema:
      > Postfix:
      > > The passwd file is world readable.
      > >
      > > The question is, what happens to mail after it is put into the
      > > postfix/hold folder?
      >
      > There is no message in the queue. Postfix NEVER ACCEPTED THE MAIL.

      >Oops, if the message came from a content filter, there will be a message in
      the deferred queue that awaits processing by the filter.

      > Wietse

      Thanks, I am misunderstanding how postfix handles mail. I had assumed
      incoming mail is put into the hold folder, then from there any filtering
      software like amavis or mailscanner would pick it up scan it then pass it
      back to postfix where it would then get put into the other queues.

      I have given up and re-imaged the server, going to try from scratch again. I
      have done a few postfix setups before this with postfix and mailscanner with
      no problems, but this has been my first attempt at using amavis.
      I messed around with the server settings, figure it would be good to start
      over.

      Maybe the problem is I have used the amavis debian packages but then
      compiled postfix from source. I would like to use the latest postfix, but
      maybe I have to stick with the debian package of postfix even though it is
      out of date.
    • Quanah Gibson-Mount
      --On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:08 PM -0700 Postfix ... If you re really bored, you could download Zimbra FOSS edition and install it just to look at how
      Message 2 of 19 , May 15, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:08 PM -0700 Postfix
        <postfix_list@...> wrote:

        > Thanks, I am misunderstanding how postfix handles mail. I had assumed
        > incoming mail is put into the hold folder, then from there any filtering
        > software like amavis or mailscanner would pick it up scan it then pass it
        > back to postfix where it would then get put into the other queues.

        If you're really bored, you could download Zimbra FOSS edition and install
        it just to look at how postfix is configured to talk with Amavis (and SA
        via Amavis).

        --Quanah


        --

        Quanah Gibson-Mount
        Sr. Member of Technical Staff
        Zimbra, Inc
        A Division of VMware, Inc.
        --------------------
        Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
      • Stan Hoeppner
        ... This is not how it works. Postfix/amavisd may communicate via SMTP, LMTP, or through a Unix pipe or inet socket. Amavisd never reads files directly from
        Message 3 of 19 , May 15, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 5/15/2013 5:08 PM, Postfix wrote:

          > Thanks, I am misunderstanding how postfix handles mail. I had assumed
          > incoming mail is put into the hold folder, then from there any filtering
          > software like amavis or mailscanner would pick it up scan it then pass it
          > back to postfix where it would then get put into the other queues.

          This is not how it works. Postfix/amavisd may communicate via SMTP,
          LMTP, or through a Unix pipe or inet socket. Amavisd never reads files
          directly from Postfix queues.

          You are confused because you have previously used Mailscanner, which is
          not supported by Postfix. It is not supported precisely because of the
          way it manipulates files directly in Postfix queue directories instead
          of using a supported Postfix API.
          ...
          > Maybe the problem is I have used the amavis debian packages but then
          > compiled postfix from source. I would like to use the latest postfix, but
          > maybe I have to stick with the debian package of postfix even though it is
          > out of date.

          I think your problem is that you simply haven't learned enough yet and
          have not configured the interfaces properly.

          And your definition of "out of date", your thinking here, is flawed.
          Debian Stable 7 was just released and includes Postfix 2.9.6, which is
          the most recent 2.9 upstream patch level. Only Wietse's current
          upstream stable, is 2.10 patch level 0, is newer. If you'd look at the
          2.10 change log you'd see that you likely don't the few additional new
          features not in 2.9.6. You also likely don't need 80% or more of the
          Postfix features going back to Postfix 2.0.

          You're making incorrect assumptions about the usefulness of software
          based solely on revision numbers, of which you apparently have little or
          no understanding. You must be a very wealthy man, as you most certainly
          buy a new car on Jan 1 of each year, as your current car must be "out of
          date" at that point, i.e. 2012 vs 2013.

          --
          Stan
        • Viktor Dukhovni
          ... [ Editorial comment. ] With Reindl off the list, in part at Stan s suggestion, Stan should try to not pick up too much of the slack... -- Viktor.
          Message 4 of 19 , May 15, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:37:14PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

            > You're making incorrect assumptions about the usefulness of software
            > based solely on revision numbers, of which you apparently have little or
            > no understanding. You must be a very wealthy man, as you most certainly
            > buy a new car on Jan 1 of each year, as your current car must be "out of
            > date" at that point, i.e. 2012 vs 2013.

            [ Editorial comment. ]

            With Reindl off the list, in part at Stan's suggestion, Stan should
            try to not pick up too much of the slack...

            --
            Viktor.
          • Wietse Venema
            ... +1 Keep it friendly, Stan! Wietse
            Message 5 of 19 , May 15, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Viktor Dukhovni:
              > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:37:14PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
              >
              > > You're making incorrect assumptions about the usefulness of software
              > > based solely on revision numbers, of which you apparently have little or
              > > no understanding. You must be a very wealthy man, as you most certainly
              > > buy a new car on Jan 1 of each year, as your current car must be "out of
              > > date" at that point, i.e. 2012 vs 2013.
              >
              > [ Editorial comment. ]
              >
              > With Reindl off the list, in part at Stan's suggestion, Stan should
              > try to not pick up too much of the slack...

              +1

              Keep it friendly, Stan!

              Wietse
            • Stan Hoeppner
              ... Bah, you re both New Yorkers so you surely must be plenty familiar with sarcasm. Ok, Wietse lives a little farther up state and spends all of his time at
              Message 6 of 19 , May 16, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On 5/15/2013 7:21 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
                > Viktor Dukhovni:
                >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:37:14PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
                >>
                >>> You're making incorrect assumptions about the usefulness of software
                >>> based solely on revision numbers, of which you apparently have little or
                >>> no understanding. You must be a very wealthy man, as you most certainly
                >>> buy a new car on Jan 1 of each year, as your current car must be "out of
                >>> date" at that point, i.e. 2012 vs 2013.
                >>
                >> [ Editorial comment. ]
                >>
                >> With Reindl off the list, in part at Stan's suggestion, Stan should
                >> try to not pick up too much of the slack...
                >
                > +1
                >
                > Keep it friendly, Stan!

                Bah, you're both New Yorkers so you surely must be plenty familiar with
                sarcasm. Ok, Wietse lives a little farther up state and spends all of
                his time at home or in the funny shaped IBM building with no windows, so
                he may not see that much sarcasm. ;) But Viktor you've worked in the
                city, may still, and you may live there for all I know, so surely you
                see sarcasm every day. But it's not just part of New York culture, but
                American culture. It's a powerful literary tool used by hundreds of
                thousands of publications and people daily.

                Sure, Reindl used sarcasm, but he also cursed at people and called them
                stupid, among other things. This was my beef with him. I don't do such
                things. Lumping me in with Reindl simply for using sarcasm is painting
                with a very broad brush and simply not kosher.

                If you want to make it a blanket rule that straight sarcasm is not
                allowed on the list then I'll abide by that. I think that would be
                pretty silly, given that sarcasm permeates our society, at least
                American society. Apparently you two don't watch Leno, Letterman, any
                late night comics, as sarcasm abounds on such shows, to name only a few.
                Of course they say it with a smile.

                If I'd added a winky at the end, would that have prevented all of this?
                As I'd have said it with a smile? Making it "lighter" and not
                perceived as being rude?

                Sheesh...

                --
                Stan
              • Wietse Venema
                ... Stan, Viktor and I were looking from the perspective of the receiver, i.e. the person whose question you replied to. The odds are good that their cultural
                Message 7 of 19 , May 16, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Stan Hoeppner:
                  > On 5/15/2013 7:21 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
                  > > Viktor Dukhovni:
                  > >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 06:37:14PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >>> You're making incorrect assumptions about the usefulness of software
                  > >>> based solely on revision numbers, of which you apparently have little or
                  > >>> no understanding. You must be a very wealthy man, as you most certainly
                  > >>> buy a new car on Jan 1 of each year, as your current car must be "out of
                  > >>> date" at that point, i.e. 2012 vs 2013.
                  > >>
                  > >> [ Editorial comment. ]
                  > >>
                  > >> With Reindl off the list, in part at Stan's suggestion, Stan should
                  > >> try to not pick up too much of the slack...
                  > >
                  > > +1
                  > >
                  > > Keep it friendly, Stan!
                  >
                  > Bah, you're both New Yorkers so you surely must be plenty familiar with
                  > sarcasm. Ok, Wietse lives a little farther up state and spends all of

                  Stan, Viktor and I were looking from the perspective of the receiver,
                  i.e. the person whose question you replied to. The odds are good
                  that their cultural background differs from yours. In fact, the far
                  majority of people do not have English as their primary language.

                  One well-known limitation of email is that it is single-modal. The
                  receiver does not get any hints from voice, face expression or body
                  language that a response is sarcastic or not.

                  So, keep it friendly, and if you must add sarcasm, make it plenty
                  redundantly clear. Recall that a lot of nuance/innuendo/jokes will
                  not come across as most people are not native English speakers.

                  Wietse
                • Viktor Dukhovni
                  On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 07:27:59AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: [begin hostility] ... [end hostility] [begin sarcasm] ... [end sarcasm] ... Chill out and keep
                  Message 8 of 19 , May 16, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 07:27:59AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

                    [begin hostility]
                    > >>> You're making incorrect assumptions about the usefulness of software
                    > >>> based solely on revision numbers, of which you apparently have little or
                    > >>> no understanding.
                    [end hostility]

                    [begin sarcasm]
                    > >>>You must be a very wealthy man, as you most certainly
                    > >>> buy a new car on Jan 1 of each year, as your current car must be "out of
                    > >>> date" at that point, i.e. 2012 vs 2013.
                    [end sarcasm]

                    > >> [ Editorial comment. ]
                    > >>
                    > >> With Reindl off the list, in part at Stan's suggestion, Stan should
                    > >> try to not pick up too much of the slack...
                    > >
                    > > +1
                    > >
                    > > Keep it friendly, Stan!

                    > Sure, Reindl used sarcasm, but he also cursed at people and called them
                    > stupid, among other things. This was my beef with him. I don't do such
                    > things. Lumping me in with Reindl simply for using sarcasm is painting
                    > with a very broad brush and simply not kosher.

                    Chill out and keep it civil. Thanks.

                    > If you want to make it a blanket rule that straight sarcasm is not
                    > allowed on the list then I'll abide by that.

                    Give it a try, sarcasm on public mailing lists is not terribly useful.

                    > If I'd added a winky at the end, would that have prevented all of this?

                    Probably not. Just think it to yourself, smile if you enjoyed the
                    wit and don't mail it.

                    --
                    Viktor.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.