On Saturday 11 February 2006 08:25, Craig McLean wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Gene Heskett wrote: >[snip fetchmail discussion] > >> In further reading tonight, sendmail grew the libmilter freature at >> 8.12, which is the base version running here, and yum won't update >> it, says its current. > >What version of the OS are you running, Gene? FC4 has 8.13.4-2 as the >latest, not that it necessarily makes any odds. > FC2 with lots of tarball installed stuff to replace the originally drain bamaged FC2 stuff, like cups, gutenprint (pick a random proggy, its possibly a tarball install, or maybe a checkinstalled version.
>> Right now, I'm looking at the >> <http://www.bmsi.com/python/milter.html> site, trying to see how >> this is done. >> >> But, here is the headache: At no place in the various files sitting >> in /etc/mail that serve to configure sendmail, is there an example >> of how to configure sendmail to make use of these feature >> facilities. > >Basic milter information can be found at: >http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/doc8.12/cf/m4/adding_mailfilters.htm >l and more in-depth here: >http://www.milter.org/ > >An example of how to get sendmail to use spamass-milter (and >clamav-milter, I use both) looks like this, from sendmail.mc: > >- -quote- >dnl ** Milter Configurations ** >define(`confMILTER_MACROS_CONNECT',`b, j, _, {daemon_name}, {if_name}, >{if_addr}') >INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`clmilter',`S=local:/var/run/clamav/clmilter.sock, > F=, T=S:4m;R:4m')dnl >INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`spamassassin', `S=local:/var/run/spamass.sock, F=, >T=C:15m;S:4m;R:4m;E:10m') >dnl define(`confINPUT_MAIL_FILTERS', `spamassassin,clmilter') >- -quote- > >Over here I use spamass-milter to pass mail to spamc as it passes >through the MTA, because I *am* my domain's MX. >This means sendmail needs to be configured to accept mail via SMTP > which is fine for me, but might be far more overhead than you need. > >> Spamassassin 3.10 contains only very scant references to using it >> with sendmail, apparently sanctioning only the procmail interface, >> which in turn then is set to call spamc or spamassassin, adding >> needless time wasting cpu cycles to what should be a pretty simple >> job. I fail to understand why (although it will take smarter people >> than me what with sendmails configuration complexity) there is no >> readily published recipe for incorporating spamc into the sendmail >> processing chain, either by pipeing, or when the libmilter feature >> is there? > >libmilter just provides a mechanism for sendmail to pass the email, > via a socket, to a small C program, thence to spamc. Talk about > "needless time wasting CPU cycles"? I've about come to that conclusion myself, so I'm now investigating the fetchmail->procmail_>dovecot solution right now. But the dovecot mailing list might be a problem, I've subbed about an hour ago but have rx'd no please confirm message yet. Joanne has me about straight on the fetchmail and procmail stuffs, and I may even see if I can turn that part on just for grins, but dovecot's .conf looks like it'll need a philly lawyer to decode it correctly so it works. >In a configuration where you don't readily run sendmail to accept > mail, I would suggest staying the hell away from it and: Sendmail does run to collect local mail here, like from amanda and cron/logwatch, that sort of stuff. And I'd like to figure out a way to collect mail from the firewall box so I didn't have to log in via ssh 2-3 times a week and read the chkrootkit reports and such. Its normally a mounted samba share from here, so maybe I could get kmail to do that now that I think about it. Humm, off to try it by golly. >a) configuring fetchmail to simply use procmail as the MDA. ("--mda >/usr/bin/procmail" or similar, IIRC) >b) having procmail run everything handed to it through spamc, and > filter accordingly. > >Peice of cake (relatively speaking) to set up, no sendmail black magic >and fairly quick to run. > >> Or am I simply on the wrong mailing list? I've sent 3 subscribe >> messages to the getmail-user list over the last 3 days with no >> response which is discouraging. OTOH, now that I know it can't do >> what I want, who cares. It might be that if there was a manpage for >> getmail, it might be possible. A pox on software that doesn't come >> with readable manuals. > >Or *any* manuals Yup. I wonder if the author is reading the traffic. Obviously not, else I'd think the background noise would prompt an attempt at it at least. :) Thanks Craig. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
