>> With the absence of alternatives for rejection, doesn't it make >> sense to extend AM.PDP to include modification of the body? > > Maybe, but I'm not too enthusiastic about it, knowing aforehand > it will be quite an inefficient solution.
It may make sense to add it, but allow the optional disabling/enabling of that functionality so the user can decide if the inefficiencies are worth it. Please consider this a formal request for this functionality to be added. I've used amavis-new for a long time to handle virus scanning, and I'm just getting in to some of the other features like banned files and the spam blocking. Currently I use procmail to handle banned files (using a program called renattach which is unfortunately no longer supported) and spam filtering (spam filtering is on a per user basis right now). I think amavis-new is a great piece of software, so don't think I'm complaining. I'm just trying to find a way to integrate everything with one program on a site wide basis, in a way that'll work for me. Thank you for writing this software and making it free. Mark Martinec wrote: > Jonathan, > >>> but there is not much point transferring message back and >>> forth across a milter protocol and then again cross AM.PDP >>> protocol, when doing the same over SMTP already provides the >>> functionality. > >> Yes, but is there an alternative that will permit rejection of messages? >> A dual SMTP setup will only let you bounce them. Bouncing viruses or >> spam is not the best way to go, however losing mail isn't very >> acceptable either. Rejection in my opinion is the way to go for these >> types of messages. >> >> So, unless I'm mistaken, while doing the same over SMTP provides the >> functionality; doing it over SMTP does not provide the same >> functionality as a milter. > > In a Postfix setup an alternative is a pre-queue (proxy-type) > content filter, although this has all the shortcomings of > other pre-queue content filtering methods (such as milter). > Amavisd-new is not exactly a transparent SMTP proxy, > but some people use it that way at small sites, with reasonable > success. Specifying a D_REJECT makes possible a rejection on > the original smtp session in such a setup. > >> With the absence of alternatives for rejection, doesn't it make >> sense to extend AM.PDP to include modification of the body? > > Maybe, but I'm not too enthusiastic about it, knowing aforehand > it will be quite an inefficient solution. > > Mark > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > AMaViS-user mailing list > AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user > AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 > AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
