On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:52:23AM +1200, Jason Haar wrote: > I'd suggest the opposite is better: have the real MTA relay it to > spamproxyd. If you do it your way, you've just lost all anti-relaying > protection...
Yep. Running spamproxyd is really not an option for most of us.
You lose (if I'm not mistaken)
- SMTP AUTH
- STARTTLS/SSL
- The IP of the real sender
- The option to have your real MTA refuse the message at SMTP time. Now you
have to send mail bounces for viruses, dead addresses, and other non real
mail that went through. God knows where the bounces end up, if anywhere.
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 08:57:32PM -0500, dman wrote:
> | I'd suggest the opposite is better: have the real MTA relay it to
> | spamproxyd. If you do it your way, you've just lost all anti-relaying
> | protection...
>
> Why not just embedd spamc in the MTA itself? Then there's no extra
That's what I wanted to do originally.
I just didn't do it in my current version of SA-Exim, because I didn't want
to track the spamd protocol, or embed spamc into exim right now, and then
have to maintain that.
That said, if it were to be a library, I'd definitely go that route.
I also figured that an addition fork and a couple of pipes wasn't going to
be my biggest performance issue, and that turned out to be true :-)
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:17:54PM -0500, Richie Laager wrote:
>
> Indeed it would. Now, imagine for a second that we have two
> versions of libspam:
>
> The first would be a library version of spamc. Upon sending a
> message to it, the library would send the message to spamd and
> get a response back.
>
> The second version would be the 100% C version, except in a
> library format.
Both would be great, sign me up :-)
Marc
--
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP key
msg04834/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
