Jo Rhett wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: >> It's *really* common to separate spamd from the MTA for anyone that's >> got any decent volume of mail. And that's not a few sites. > > And I guess that I'm saying > > 1. People installing from RPMs and/or Ports (or Portage, etc) expect > things to work out of the box. Having it be broken for them creates a > problem very visible if you search for all_trusted in the list archives. Yeah, it's a shame that amavis is broken out of the box. > > 2. "Any decent volume of mail" with "separate servers" means it's a > customized mail environment CONFIGURED BY EXPERTS :-) Ok, so we should break all the "experts" end user setups and require them to read some docs in order to avoid one symptom of a major problem with amavis?
> > I dunno. I would aim for the former, and then provide good docs for > the latter. The former generally don't read the docs, and I prefer to > avoid the mailing list noise. > I'm sorry, but I still consider the "expert" here to be the amavis developer(s). There's only a few of them, and what they need to do is documented. It's a shame amavis missed out on this. But it seems odd to me that I have talked to so many amavis users over the years and they all seem to have working SA configs. Missing that Received: header is going to result in a SA that's just horrifyingly broken, even without ALL_TRUSTED. How have all the amavis users not noticed this earlier? Have they all been just disabling ALL_TRUSTED, the DNSBLs, the HELO_DYNAMIC rules and never using whitelist_from_rcvd? I'd think someone would have at least started complaining about whitelist_from_rcvd by now..
