On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 18:53, Paul Howarth wrote: > Ow Mun Heng wrote: > > 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. On outgoing emails? No. I want them to bypass the MTA and go straight to the MX. Hmm.. this may prove to be futile since in the company, with no I-net access, emails gets set out via the FALLBACK_MX (whcih is actually the SMART_HOST equilvalent, only better) But hang on, sending local emails to local users still go through the milters. Which I Don't want. Objective. All outgoing emails from Evo, gets sent to port 587, and then goes to the recipient. > > 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. I'm sticking with the MTA solution. Thanks
