Am 24.10.2012 22:04, schrieb Bill Shirley:
>
> On 10/24/2012 2:24 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> Am 24.10.2012 19:21, schrieb Bill Shirley:
>>> Admittedly, I have not used amavisd-new or LMTP; they may be better.
>>> But will they allow spamassassin per-user prefs? Performance is a plus;
>>> anot
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:32:55 -0500
/dev/rob0 wrote:
> There seems to be much confusion in this thread. I might be able to
> help clear up some of it, but probably not all, because I agree with
> Robert about using amavisd-new for filtering and LMTP for delivery.
>
Thanks for the reality check
On 10/24/2012 2:32 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 24.10.2012 20:25, schrieb /dev/rob0:
Regarding Robert's "flame" comment in the other subthread, I agree
with you; I saw no flame. And I did not suggest that you were not
trying to help
take my sorry, as non native english, perhaps i missused "
On 10/24/2012 2:24 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 24.10.2012 19:21, schrieb Bill Shirley:
Admittedly, I have not used amavisd-new or LMTP; they may be better.
But will they allow spamassassin per-user prefs? Performance is a plus;
another daemon is not. That saying, I'll run another daemon if
On 10/24/2012 2:25 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:04:39PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
On 10/24/2012 1:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:41PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
On 10/24/2012 12:32 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:52:45PM -0600, Troy
Am 24.10.2012 20:25, schrieb /dev/rob0:
> Regarding Robert's "flame" comment in the other subthread, I agree
> with you; I saw no flame. And I did not suggest that you were not
> trying to help
take my sorry, as non native english, perhaps i missused "flame" here
Best Regards
MfG Robert Schet
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:04:39PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 1:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:41PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> >>On 10/24/2012 12:32 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:52:45PM -0600, Troy Vitullo wrote:
> >snip
> post
Am 24.10.2012 19:21, schrieb Bill Shirley:
> Admittedly, I have not used amavisd-new or LMTP; they may be better.
> But will they allow spamassassin per-user prefs? Performance is a plus;
> another daemon is not. That saying, I'll run another daemon if I get
> something out of it. Any benchmarks
On 10/24/2012 1:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:41PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
On 10/24/2012 12:32 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
There seems to be much confusion in this thread. I might be able
able to help clear up some of it, but probably not all, because I
agree with Robert ab
On 10/24/2012 1:37 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 24.10.2012 18:28, schrieb Bill Shirley:
I don't understand why you strongly recommend against using the
mailbox_command. Is there a security risk here?
no ,until you dont have made any setup failures...
your right there are tons of working p
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:21:58PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 12:44 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> >I can't speak for Robert, but as I said in the other post I
> >agree with him, so I will say why. You will get better overall
> >performance with amavisd-new and LMTP, rather than invoking a
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:41PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 12:32 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> >There seems to be much confusion in this thread. I might be able
> >able to help clear up some of it, but probably not all, because I
> >agree with Robert about using amavisd-new for filteri
Am 24.10.2012 18:28, schrieb Bill Shirley:
> I don't understand why you strongly recommend against using the
> mailbox_command. Is there a security risk here?
no ,until you dont have made any setup failures...
your right there are tons of working possible setups
your free to configure as you lik
On 10/24/2012 12:32 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
There seems to be much confusion in this thread. I might be able to
help clear up some of it, but probably not all, because I agree with
Robert about using amavisd-new for filtering and LMTP for delivery.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:52:45PM -0600, Troy Vi
On 10/24/2012 12:44 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:28:48PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
I don't understand why you strongly recommend against using the
mailbox_command. Is there a security risk here?
One issue is that mailbox_command is only used for local(8) delivery.
You brou
On 10/24/2012 12:10 PM, Troy Vitullo wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:32:59 -0400
Bill Shirley wrote:
On 10/23/2012 9:06 PM, Bill Shirley wrote:
What is your mailbox_command in main.cf? I just use:
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/spamc -u "$USER" -e
/usr/lib64/dovecot/deliver -a "$RECIPIENT" -f "$
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:28:48PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> I don't understand why you strongly recommend against using the
> mailbox_command. Is there a security risk here?
One issue is that mailbox_command is only used for local(8) delivery.
You brought that up for the OP, who is reporting
There seems to be much confusion in this thread. I might be able to
help clear up some of it, but probably not all, because I agree with
Robert about using amavisd-new for filtering and LMTP for delivery.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:52:45PM -0600, Troy Vitullo wrote:
> My server uses a system com
On 10/24/2012 12:09 PM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 24.10.2012 17:47, schrieb Bill Shirley:
On 10/24/2012 2:33 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 24.10.2012 03:32, schrieb Bill Shirley:
What is your mailbox_command in main.cf? I just use:
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/spamc -u "$USER" -e
/usr/lib6
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:32:59 -0400
Bill Shirley wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 9:06 PM, Bill Shirley wrote:
> >
> >
> > What is your mailbox_command in main.cf? I just use:
> > mailbox_command = /usr/bin/spamc -u "$USER" -e
> > /usr/lib64/dovecot/deliver -a "$RECIPIENT" -f "$SENDER" -m
> > "$EXTENSION"
Am 24.10.2012 17:47, schrieb Bill Shirley:
>
> On 10/24/2012 2:33 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
>> Am 24.10.2012 03:32, schrieb Bill Shirley:
>>> What is your mailbox_command in main.cf? I just use:
>>> mailbox_command = /usr/bin/spamc -u "$USER" -e
>>> /usr/lib64/dovecot/deliver -a "$RECIPIENT" -
On 10/24/2012 2:33 AM, Robert Schetterer wrote:
Am 24.10.2012 03:32, schrieb Bill Shirley:
What is your mailbox_command in main.cf? I just use:
mailbox_command = /usr/bin/spamc -u "$USER" -e
/usr/lib64/dovecot/deliver -a "$RECIPIENT" -f "$SENDER" -m "$EXTENSION"
I don't need anything in maste
Am 24.10.2012 03:32, schrieb Bill Shirley:
> What is your mailbox_command in main.cf? I just use:
> mailbox_command = /usr/bin/spamc -u "$USER" -e
> /usr/lib64/dovecot/deliver -a "$RECIPIENT" -f "$SENDER" -m "$EXTENSION"
>
> I don't need anything in master.cf. But you should be using -u ${user}
On 10/23/2012 9:06 PM, Bill Shirley wrote:
On 10/23/2012 4:52 PM, Troy Vitullo wrote:
Hi,
My server uses a system comprised of postfix, dovecot and dspam to
filter and deliver mail.
Postfix used the following flags in calling spamc and dovecot:
flags=DRhu user=dovecot:secmail argv=/usr/bi
On 10/23/2012 4:52 PM, Troy Vitullo wrote:
Hi,
My server uses a system comprised of postfix, dovecot and dspam to filter and
deliver mail.
Postfix used the following flags in calling spamc and dovecot:
flags=DRhu user=dovecot:secmail argv=/usr/bin/spamc -u ${recipient} -e
/usr/lib/dovecot/d
Hi,
My server uses a system comprised of postfix, dovecot and dspam to filter and
deliver mail.
Postfix used the following flags in calling spamc and dovecot:
flags=DRhu user=dovecot:secmail argv=/usr/bin/spamc -u ${recipient} -e
/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -d ${recipient}
after an upgrade from
26 matches
Mail list logo
