Stefano Sasso:
> 2011/7/14 Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org>:
> >> It's not a quarantine for spam/virus... :(
> >> And I don't want to deploy amavisd only for this feature.
> >
> > You want quarantine management for non-spam/virus. It is available
> > via a standard interface (in this case, content filters). ?There
> > is no priority to duplicate and forever maintain that in Postfix.
>
> If content filter is the only way, instead of using a separate content
> filter maybe a workaround like this is more simpler:
> two smtpd instances, the first one does ip-level filtering (rlb,
> client_access, ...) and then it delivers to a second smtpd instance
> with smtp_destination_recipient_limit = 1.
> The second smtpd instance HOLDs one rcpt (mail) and let pass the others...
>
> With content filters I have to use 2 smtpd instances + content filter itself.
> With this workaround only 2 smtpd instances.
> Or am I totally wrong?
You're describing a null filter configuration. It provides half of
the quarantine management solution, namely, the ability to freeze
mail. If that works for you, then go for it.
There is no feature in Postfix to force the arrival of single-recipient
mail. A proper implementation would require grouping recipients
into recipient classes. The SMTP server would accept only recipients
in the same recipient class, and defer the other ones.
recipient class map (hash):
j...@example.com sales
tar...@example.com sales
j...@example.com engineering
Single-recipient mail would then be implemented by assiging each
recipient its own class.
recipient class map (pcre or regexp):
/(.+)/ $1
That would "solve" the "problem" that header/body_checks and other
Postfix built-ins affect multiple recipients of the same message.
All this would come at the cost of extra delays, and of making
Postfix harder to configure.
Wietse
