On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 16:21, Paul Howarth wrote: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<--
Is this what you want (the milters)? I'm still composing a reply to another email about having separate milters on the MSA and MTA.
Which version of sendmail are you running?
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?
Procmail could filter the mail through spam and virus checkers, though obviously this would be using a different mechanism than the milters, and you'd have to consult the documentation for your spam/virus checkers on how to do that. Personally I think that pushing them through your MTA is the best solution.
Paul.
