Anny,
I re-read this message this evening and realized I came across
incredibly rude.
I wrote this right after I woke up and was kind of dumping my thoughts
out without any consideration for my tone. I hope you will accept my
sincere apology, and I hope you'll believe me when I say it wasn't
intended to be rude. (and yes, I know that's not going to be easy to
believe. My honest mood this morning, amidst my grogginess, was a bit
edgy due to my still shaking off sleep, but it certainly was not nearly
this rude in intent).
So, I publicly apologize to you for:
writing so rudely
posting without reading or considering my wording
posting while still sleepy and in a hurry
allowing my sleepiness to make me a bit grumpy.
However I hope the factual information of the email is helpful to you.
MailScanner's a great tool, I actually use it myself. (check the
MailScanner list for my postings there if you like, although I use a
different email address, I use the same name). But it's not a really
good tool for those who want per-user configurations.
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Anny Lei wrote:
>
>> Dear developers,
>>
>> I am using Mailscanner with Spamassassin and I want Spamassassin
>> lookup LDAP for user preference. I have put user_scores_dsn,
>> user_scores_ldap_username, and user_scores_ldap_password in local.cf.
>> When I test running the command 'spamd -D --ldap-config -x', then cat
>> /root/sample-spam.txt | spamc -u [EMAIL PROTECTED]', it works
>> perfectly fine. But when Mailscanner accepts the email, Spamassassin
>> doesn't lookup ldap for user preference (as observed from ldap.log
>> file). I do not know where to specify --ldap-config -x command for
>> Spamassassin because Mailscanner is not calling Spamassassin daemon,
>> spamd.
>>
>> Could you please let me know how to instruct Spamassassin to lookup
>> LDAP for user preference when running with MailScanner ? Thanks in
>> advance for your assistance.
>>
>
> Follow-up part 2. I just realized the tone of my message might be lost
> on you. I'm correcting it to avoid misguiding you.
>
> However, please cease this discussion on this list. This message belongs
> on the users list, not the development list. This list is designed for
> the discussion of development efforts within the SpamAssassin project
> only. Usage questions should be directed to the users list, and the
> developers do read and reply to messages posted there.
>
> Fundamentally, MailScanner is not designed to support per-user
> configurations. This isn't anything that SpamAssassin can change, but it
> is also something MailScanner cannot be easily changed to do. On top of
> it all, it would also change what MailScanner is, and really defeat some
> of the design criteria for MailScanner.
>
> Generally speaking, most tools that run at the MTA (mail transport
> agent) layer don't support per user configuration. Those that do,
> support it poorly. If you really and truly want per-user configuration,
> the best place for you to call SA is at the MDA (mail delivery agent)
> layer, ie: via procmail.
>
> Calling at the MTA layer suffers from several problems if you want to
> have per-user configuration:
>
> 1) MTA layer tools must guess at what the final recipient is, because
> they only have the RCPT TO: address to work from. However, that address
> might be an alias. Odds are there is no "webmaster" user on your system,
> it's just an alias to root's mailbox. Etc, etc, etc. While generally
> there's not many aliases on a system, some sites have lots of aliases,
> and MTA layer user-guessing breaks down when this happens.
>
> 2) At the MTA layer, if a message is sent to multiple users, it is one
> message with multiple recipients. The MTA layer tool must make a
> decision as to who's user preferences to apply. Because there's only one
> message to work with, it can only use one, and most will generally use
> "whoever came first" in the recipient list. There are ways around that,
> such as forcing a message to be requeued separately, but this introduces
> inefficiency on the MTA side, all to do something that happens naturally
> at the MDA.
>
> Of course, MDA layer tools call SA once per recipient, instead of once
> per message. This results in more calls to SA, and more CPU usage, but
> that's what you need to do per-user configurations properly.
>
>
>
>
