Postfix Integration - Run another filter first

[Leland J. Steinke]

My recollection is that the cleanup(8) daemon is what places messages in 
the hold queue.  MailScanner picks them up there and drops them into 
incoming when it's done.  http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html indicates 
optional "light-weight content inspection" in the BUILTIN_FILTER_README.

If all else failed, maybe you could set up header_checks to use the 
FILTER action on Received: headers to a daemon that inserts some other 
header which you could then use as a trigger for the HOLD action after 
the message is re-injected.  I make no promises that this would work at 
all, but it would be cool if it did.  ;-)


Leland
Joseph Jamieson wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m pretty new to MailScanner, but I do have a working system and it works.
> 
>  
> 
> I am having trouble tracking down a few bits of information, though – 
> and this is mostly a Postfix question but I figured someone here might know.
> 
>  
> 
> MailScanner uses the Postfix header-checks “HOLD” feature to scan the 
> messages.   Postfix drops the message into the hold folder, and every 
> few moments MailScanner will check the folder, scan all the messages, 
> and then drop it into a folder for postfix to grab and continue sending 
> the message on its way.
> 
>  
> 
> At what time in the process does Postfix do this?     It appears that 
> postfix will do this before pretty much anything else.   So, if I have a 
> filter set up in the master.cf (for instance, dspam) MailScanner always 
> gets a hold of the message first.    What if I wanted to use dspam to 
> tag a message probability, and add some scores to SpamAssassin (which is 
> run by MailScanner?)    That way,  MailScanner remains the only system 
> that’s doing any tagging, quarantining, etc.
> 
>  
> 
> DSPAM is just an example.   I can think of several other nice little 
> things I’d like to be able to do, too.
> 
>  
> 
> So, I guess the question is:   Is there any way to run a filter via 
> Postfix **before** MailScanner gets its turn?    Or do I have it all 
> wrong here?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks in advance.
>