On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:24 +0000, Robert Brooks wrote: > Brian wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:00 +0000, Robert Brooks wrote: > >> Brian wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:17 +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > >>>> * Brian <brel.astersik100...@copperproductions.co.uk>: > >>>> > >>>>> In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes > >>>>> responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about > >>>>> the validity or content of that message. > >>>> Postfix can do this either via the milter interface OR the > >>>> smtpd_proxy_filter > >>>> > >>>> It's very easy. > >>>> > >>> So Ralf - author of 'The Postfix Book', can you please now tell me how > >>> to get Postfix to reject mail before it accepts it and gives a 250 - > >>> When Spamassassin tags it as spam? > >> personally I use smtpd_proxy_filter to do EXACTLY this. > > > > And without an external program...... ? > > > > Clue 'YOU CAN'T'. > > so your objection is that there's an "external program" between Postfix > and Spamassasin? > > Personally I find amavisd-new does a fine job. That Postfix doesn't > directly present an email directly to spamassassin is fine with me, > since I wish to do a bunch of other checks (AV for instance).
Do I object to there being a program to interface Postfix to Spamassassin - not necessarily. It would be nicer to not have to do it this way and the clue as to why is in the title of the thread..... Postfix remains an MTA for the 1990's as it is, but that's just a view. If 9x% of the traffic an MTA gets to see is unwanted SPAM, it's not unreasonable to expect a solid and reliable built in mechanism to reject it. It's a Postfix ethos to not accept mail for 'x' reason but the old 'it's only an MTA' arguement comes out time and time again by a small group of people who are so far up the arse of WT, you would think they were his piles! Put it this way. I were buying a cheap car 20 years ago I would have expected to add my own alarm and immobiliser to deal with threats and vulnerabilities - after all a car is just a car, not a security system. In 2010 even a cheap car has a built in immobiliser as it has adapted to the threat and expectations of customers. I'm glad you like amavis-new. I found it to scale poorly and a single, common point of failure and fall into the category that is commonly called 'bloat'. It does illustrate all the missing features of Postfix in quite a handy example - so thanks for mentioning it. This thread has run on past it's bedtime and has already degenerated beyond useful to Spamassassin users. I'm sure the asshats and asslickers will continue to populate it and argue the toss, but the facts are stark. Postfix lacks basic features for the age. Put it side by side with Exim and the 'it's only an MTA' thing falls flat on it's face. Good luck squabbling about it girls LOL.
