| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
> Markus Edholm wrote: >> Hi List >> >> I´m running several mailservers that deliver mail to each other and not on same net. >> >> My thought was that mail fetched or sent from primary mailserver doesn´t need to be spam checked again on secondary server. >> Only for mail fetched from other must be checked. >> On main server I running postfix-amavisd-new-spamassassin the whole kit, >> but on the secondary only postfix and spamassassin without amavisd-new using >> script. > > why not use amavisd-new on the secondary server as well. the script > method is fragile (see the FILTER README) >> master.cf >> smtp inet n - n - - smtpd >> -o content_filter=spamfilter:dummy >> ------- >> spamfilter unix - n n - - pipe >> flags=Rq user=spamd argv=/usr/local/bin/spamfilter.sh -f ${sender} -- ${recipient} >> >> >> spamfilter.sh: >> #!/bin/bash >> /usr/local/bin/spamc | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i "$@" >> exit $? >> >> I found some examples of policy's but only for use together with amavisd-new >> and I don't want to use amavisd-new if no need to. > > amavisd-new would be better for your performances than forking a script > that forks a program that talks with a perl daemon. with amavisd-new, > one daemon does this all (and more if you want). > >> Anyone for some simple/and clever solution? >> > > see the thread "no content-filter for authed users" (Date: 15th of this > month). The idea is the same and amounts to a check_client_access that > returns a FILTER command. > > smtpd_client_restrictions = > check_client_access cidr:/etc/postfix/client_filter > > == client_filter: > 10.1.2.0/24 FILTER dummy: > 10.3.4.0/24 FILTER virusscanner: > > Note that if you have a FILTER statement in subsequent checks or in > header/body checks, this will override the above (only one filter will > be used, and the last statement wins). > > Hi Mouss! Yes, you are probably right. I will consider amavisd-new again. tnx /Markus
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2004-2008 readlist.com