Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:54:02 +0100 skrev Jeroen Geilman <jer...@adaptr.nl>:
> On 02/08/2013 06:02 PM, Titanus Eramius wrote:
>
> > Feb 7 22:12:48 ntdata postfix/pickup[24843]: 048341743609: uid=5005
> > from=<SRS0=3u76=L7=gmail.com=jimmiedcu...@nt-data.dk>
>
> So you are...not re-injecting spamassassin traffic, but instead
> re-submitting it via sendmail ?
> That's weird.
>
> > Feb 7 22:12:48 ntdata postfix/pipe[30177]: 39E441743607:
> > to=<a...@ubuntudanmark.dk>, relay=spamassassin, delay=0.95,
> > delays=0.53/0/0/0.41, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (delivered via
> > spamassassin service)
>
> THIS is a send to spamassassin, but delayed in logging for almost a
> second.
>
> It looks very much as if you're doing in-line spamassassin checks,
> but then not re-injecting it via SMTP.
>
> Why are you doing such a strange thing ?
>
To be honest I've read quite a lot about Postfix, Dovecot, SA ... , but
my experience is very limited and contained to about 3 months of
running time.
So SA is integrated as I found best after reading docs and guides, and
it's more than likely it can be done in a better way. Normally though,
the running time of SA is around ~200ms per text-mail.
It's integrated as a content_filter on smtp like so:
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd -o content_filter=spamassassin
And then on it's own lines:
spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
flags=Rq user=spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -u ${user}@${domain}
-e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender} ${recipient}
The sendmail-method seems to be preferred by the SA-folks
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSpamdInPostfix
All of those examples uses sendmail. But again, in relation to Postfix,
it might very well be possible to integrate SA in a better way. Maybe
the method suggested by the docs on content_filters?
http://www.postfix.org/FILTER_README.html#advanced_filter
