On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 11:52:23AM +1200, Jason Haar wrote: | On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 10:33:41AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote: | > Fix that first, if you want to fix anything. Grab, or write, a version | > of spamproxyd that you trust[1] with your email, then have inbound SMTP | > talk directly to that and have it relay on to the real MTA. | | I'd suggest the opposite is better: have the real MTA relay it to | spamproxyd. If you do it your way, you've just lost all anti-relaying | protection...
Why not just embedd spamc in the MTA itself? Then there's no extra process running and the MTA just does a little more socket work passing the message through spamd. In fact, Marc's sa-exim patch almost does this. The only thing it doesn't do is copy-n-paste the core of spamc because piping to it has more maintainability and thus far has acceptable performance. It wouldn't be a bad idea to split spamc in to a program/library pair so that others can link in the core spamd protocol handling but provide a different interface (eg exim's local_scan instead of stdin/stdout). -D -- If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. GnuPG key : http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/public_key.gpg
msg04825/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
