Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:20:48 +0200 From: Olivier Tharan <olive@oban.frmug.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Spamassasin Message-ID: <20031015082048.GH40773@weirdos.oban.frmug.org> In-Reply-To: <20031014232435.L64920@defjam.cc.strath.ac.uk> References: <20031012123823.M25378@littlejack.nl> <200310121213.34769.wes@softweyr.com> <20031014115902.GA25582@rfc-networks.ie> <1066164638.6688.5.camel@hawk.gnome.co.uk> <20031014232435.L64920@defjam.cc.strath.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jethro R Binks <jethro.binks@strath.ac.uk> (20031014 23:47): > Postfix support was only fairly recently added after repeated requests. > I've heard that the queue format is less clearly documented (I don't know; > I don't use postfix). I also understand that the Postfix developers > prefer other programs not to mess around with the Postfix queue directly. The internal format of Postfix queues are meant to be internal, and are subject to change between versions, so they are not documented on purpose. Moreover, messing with Postfix queues directly may have a (very small) probability of losing email. > Whether MS does so robustly or not I couldn't say: best ask someone who > runs Postfix+MS. If Postfix's developers are unhappy with the way that MS > does so, then I guess it isn't surprising that they would advise against > using MS. MS' developers strive for robustness, so if the information is > readily available on how to safely access the Postfix queue they will > probably have taken it into account. Postfix' author advises a simple filtering strategy: talking SMTP back and forth between Postfix. I guess that is why amavisd-new is sometimes preferred as an antivirus and antispam gateway on the postfix-users list. -- olive
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031015082048.GH40773>