Peace proposal: postfix+sendmail+mailscanner

[am.lists]

On 3/9/07, Hugo van der Kooij <hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org> wrote:
> Right,
>
> In this holy war of MTA's may I suggest a peace proposal? At least humor
> me and read it in full before you start firing again.
>
> Just a few assumptions:
>  - MailScanner is designed to work on mailqueues. (batch wise)
>  - sendmail's way of working with mailqueues does fit MailScanner.
>  - postfix prefers SMTP conversations between postfix and 3rd party
>    components.
>
> As some prefer to maintain postfix configurations instead of sendmail
> configurations there is a gap left between the MailScanner and postfix
> ideologies.
>
> How about using a stripped down sendmail config to bridge that gap? That
> config could be generic as far as I can figure it out.
>
> The flow would then be something like:
>
>        Outside world ==SMTP==> postfix:25
>        postfix ==SMTP==> sendmail:10225
>        sendmail ==QUEUE==> MailScanner
>        ...... MailScanner (doing a lot of tricks)
>        MailScanner ==QUEUE==> sendmail
>        sendmail ==SMTP==> postfix:10025
>        postfix delivery as usual
>
> Basically sendmail would be a stripped down solution to translate from
> SMTP to inbound queue and outbound queue to SMTP again.
>
> >From the postfix perspective sendmail is just another filter pretty much
> like one would do for amavisd, .....
>
> The trick is to build a sendmail config that would do the trick and does
> not require changes for multidomain handling. The SmartHost option would
> be sufficient to handle the hand of back to postfix. (Even I can write
> that part. ;-)
>
> Hugo.
>


Pardon my ignorance here, but are we attempting to get around Wietse's
ALL CAPS statement that MailScanner uses unsupported methods to
manipulate Postfix?

If that's our goal to solve, why don't we simply have Jules and Wietse
have a conference together and discuss the access methods. Perhaps
Jules is doing this 'unsupported' access in a completely harmless way,
such that if Wietse understood it more fully (I'm not suggesting that
he doesn't...) then perhaps Wietse would be more forgiving and amend
his statement that "as of such and such version, MailScanner uses
supported methods..." or something.

I think having another layer for transport is not necessarily a good
thing. It's one more thing to troubleshoot when things get ... well,
you know how they can get.

Just my $0.04 worth (that's ~£0.02 for those on the other side of the pond)

Angelo