On Sun, 12 May 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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?
Security. Did I mention security in there? Oh, and security. :)
> Then there's no extra process running and the MTA just does a little
> more socket work passing the message through spamd.
Yup. I wouldn't embed it, of course, but would rather use it as a filter
talking SMTP or some internal protocol that the MTA understood.
Daniel
--
The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose
that I am here and you are there.
-- Yasutani Roshi
_______________________________________________________________
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
