> > Running Postscreen after a spam appliance is pointless. It is a > > spambot detector (in more sophisticated words, it implements IP > > address-based reputation). > > Ok. But I still would like to know where in the stack the problem is. > Right now, they are simply testing a release candidate in their existing > setup (where postscreen did not previously exist). As soon as postscreen > is introduced, things break. That seems problematic, particularly given > that the default actions for postscreen are all set to ignore. I.e., I > would assume (apparently incorrectly), that there should be no behavior > changes if postscreen is set to not take any actions. And yet, here we see > a significant behavior change.
Right now, one of the server setups I deal with runs a standalone Postfix frontend in front of Zimbra 8.6 running effectively only as a backend. The Postfix instance has postscreen & amavisd turned on, and soon will have a milter or 2. The Zimbra v8 instance (where postscreen did not previously exist) has all anti-spam/anti-virus checks turned off. I might have missed it in the thread, but I'm curious. Have you checked whether the problem exists with Zimbra vNEXT "behind" something else with anti-spam running? E.g. a standalone Postfix instance? Just wondering. Jason
