On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:35 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Brian wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:51:45 +0000:
>
> > Yes, but that does not answer my question {and is once more Postfix
> > biased} AFAIK Postfix is totally unable to reject mail at SMTP time that
> > Spamassassin decides IS SPAM without the aid of a milter or policy
> > deamon of some kind.
>
> You have a very simplistic view on how mail transportation works and maybe
> on how software works.
> First: Postfix is a M Transport A and not a M Rejection A. It's common
> practice in software design to have "plugins" do work that the core
> package doesn't.
YAWN - it's not about how software is constructed or what it does, but
more about what Postfix is incapable of doing and the old stock trollop
that is rolled out 'That's not the job of the MTA'. That answer was just
about good enough in the 1990's, but it's lame now.
In the year 2010 it is not unreasonable to expect the MTA that takes
responsibility for accepting a message to make reasonable checks about
the validity or content of that message. This is very much a 1980's
programming view of telling the user what they can have, rather than
implementing the basic features the user requires.
It's interesting to note that Barracuda Networks had to write their own
MTA* to put in front of Postfix to support all the features it could not
offer.
Exim seems to offer far more than Postfix will ever bleat about
supporting but perhaps the University of Cambridge have a 'simplistic
view on how mail transportation ... and software works'
This is all very OT and pointless. Anyone who has dealt with Postfix in
terms of years knows all the flaws, such as rejecting message with
Spamassassin at SMTP needs a milter/PD - and that this milter has (on
top of a few minor bugs) now been found to have a serious vulnerability.
*I use the term 'write their own mta' in the loosest sense of the word
as I have been unable to source the origin of the BSMTP that they use.
Please feel free to carry on flogging a dead horse ;-)
