On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 16:21, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 06:43, Ow Mun Heng wrote: > > > > assuming these : > > > > 1. MSA on port 587, MTA on port 25. > > 2. Milters running on port 25 > > 3. No Milters running on port 587. > > 4. Incoming External mails goes to port 25 > > 5. Internal Outgoing mails goes to port 587 > > (SMTP AUTH/TLS etc) > > > > that outgoing mails are _not_ scanned by any milters (to save cpu > > cycles). ( I still need to check on that - I just did, since my > > submit.mc points my msp to localhost, it's getting miltered. Drats) > > Perhaps we should start again from first principles. They key difference > between the MSA and the MTA is that the MSA is targeted at outgoing mail > and the MTA is targeted at incoming mail. So clearly you are going to > want anti-virus/spam etc. filters on the MTA to deal with the incoming > menace. Whether you want such filters on the outgoing traffic is a > matter of preference, but splitting the functionality between MTA and > MSA gives you the option of not applying the same filters to outgoing > traffic if you don't feel the need to have them. Understood. Exactly what I want. How to implement that is still a mystery to me right now. Because the MSA and the MTA port is up. Evo is configured to use the MSA for mail delivery. I just did a ethereal trace when sending messages locally. I see this sort of exchanges.. Evo -> Port 587 (MSA) (Then I see Clamav-milter being called ) --->Received: by clamav-milter<---- (then it gets passed to Spamc) -->PROCESS SPAMC/1.3<--- (then I see the MSA port tells the connecting port) -->Message accepted for delivery<-- > > > > fetchmail can deliver the fetched mail differently than just to a > > > running MTA on port 25. > > > > Are you talking about the -S option for fetchmail? > > (Keyword: smtp[host]) Specify [snip] > You don't need an MTA (local or otherwise) to use fetchmail. You can use > an MDA (Mail Delivery Agent) like procmail to handle delivery instead: > Then what about Spam/virus checks?
