OT: performance smf-sav vs milter-ahead

[Ken A]

Bryan Guest wrote:
> Hello
> 
> With my apologies for the off topic nature of this question, has anyone 
> compared performance between SMF-SAV and Milter-Ahead?
> 
> If so, is there an appreciable difference when using one or the other in 
> conjuction with MailScanner?
> 
> Many thanks to Julian Field and everyone on this list for MailScanner 
> and the support it receives.  I sincerely appreciate any feedback provided.
> 
> Bryan Guest
> Bruce Telecom

smf-sav seems okay, but watch out for:

// if (verify && strcmp(verify, "OK") == 0) return SMFIS_ACCEPT;

..which says "If the client ssl client certificate verifies with an 
authority, then skip the milters". That's a bad assumption. I just 
commented out the line in the code and recompiled(Yes, I reported it). I 
have not looked at how milter-ahead handles this, or how well it works, 
though it's codebase is certainly more mature and well tested.

Ken


-- 
Ken Anderson
Pacific.Net