sen; Chris Santerre
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] spamd and virtual users. Theo
>
>
> What about mail servers that don't? Or situations where SA
> is run on a standalone in a gateway configuration and
> relaying to the actual server? SpamD/Sp
What about mail servers that don't? Or situations where SA
is run on a standalone in a gateway configuration and
relaying to the actual server? SpamD/SpamC is perfect for
that as it is. So would MySQL type of configuration, no?
As it is my setup has all email scanned at the gateway and
then passed
s Petersen; Chris Santerre
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] spamd and virtual users. Theo
>
>
> What about mail servers that don't? Or situations where SA
> is run on a standalone in a gateway configuration and
> relaying to the actual server? SpamD/SpamC is perfe
> Problem: Use SA on Aliases and / or virtusers AND real users combined.
yup, that one exactly.
> So far the only solution looks like using MySQL. (Which for reasons of my
> own I don't want to do right now.)
>From what I've seen, a simple solution would be to get spamc to pass a
couple more bi
I've been looking into this problem for a while now. I've searched the
archives and found many questions but little answers.
Problem: Use SA on Aliases and / or virtusers AND real users combined.
So far the only solution looks like using MySQL. (Which for reasons of my
own I don't want to do righ
> I doubt that passing a couple of variables to spamd would increase the
> overhead of spamc by anything noticeable. But I get your point. I'm
> just trying to figure out a way to make this thing work properly with my
> setup and that seemed like the easiest solution short of hardcoding
> spamd t
> The purpose of spamc is to be as lightweight as possible. Ideally
> spamc will not contain any features that aren't useful by most people.
I doubt that passing a couple of variables to spamd would increase the
overhead of spamc by anything noticeable. But I get your point. I'm
just trying to f
tersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd and virtual users
> Why not use an SQL database instead? That's what we do with vpopmail
>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:48:51PM -0800, Chris Petersen wrote:
> why not just let spamc handle more of the normal spamassassin commands,
> anyway?
The purpose of spamc is to be as lightweight as possible. Ideally
spamc will not contain any features that aren't useful by most people.
--
Duncan F
> Why not use an SQL database instead? That's what we do with vpopmail
> (although I'd love for qmail-scanner to have support for virtual users, oh
> well) and it works just dandy.
sql database for what? authentication? Or everything? The only reason
these users are "virtual" is because they'
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spamd and virtual users
I haven't heard a reply about this, and think it's a rather serious issue.
Has anyone else ever bothered to use spamd with virtual users? I'd fix
this myself, but there
ts $ENV{HOME} var to
spamd...
why not just let spamc handle more of the normal spamassassin commands,
anyway?
-Chris
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Chris Petersen wrote:
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Chris Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [SAtalk] spamd and virtual users
> Date
I've recently run into an issue... I use courier-mta's userdb auth to set
up virtual accounts for a few domains I host on my machine. This is nice,
since I don't need to create system accounts on my machine for people who
have no right to be in there. I finally figured out why I hadn't been
13 matches
Mail list logo
