On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:27 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> OK after rereading the docs for spamass-milter and your explanation
> I think the light dawned.
>
Yep, your view looks right. I can't say more because once I got a look
at sendmail configuration and saw the huge chunks missing from the
O'Reilly Sendmail book I headed straight for Postfix.
> Of course, you have the problem of aliases - but you either do what I
> did which is create a UID for each alias entry or you just don't use
> aliases at all.
>
They're useful: I redirect all root's mail to my usual mailbox and sweep
up a bit of other stuff such as cron mail and mandatory mail and web
usernames, so in a normal day I don't need to visit root at all.
> What is dumb, though is that spamass-milter is basically locked to
> sendmail (since no other MTA implements a milter interface, although
> I think that one other one out there is beginning to) and sendmail
> does alias expansions and comma expansions AFTER the milter is run -
> thus you would never get a situation of multiple recipients being
> passed to the milter unless the mail originated from the localhost
>
To me the real problem is that, by calling spamass-milter before
applying alias translation you are prevented from using aliases to allow
users like postmaster, abuse and webmaster to be nonexistent by
redirecting them to root or a single dedicated user and still be able to
use spamass-milter's -u option for per-user SA rules. Thats also a
situation where per-user SA preferences could be rather useful.
> server itself (very unlikely since even clients like Pine which are
> intended to run on the server, pass the mail via smtp to the localhost)
>
Que? Surely an inbound message addressed
"To: j...@example.com, m...@example.com, s...@example.com"
would cause spamd to be run under the user specified with -u. However, I
agree that -u wasn't a good option to use since it usually means "use
this user".
Martin
