Please forgive what might be a too-basic question. I'm setting up a
new system with Postfix/virtual delivering to Dovecot LMTP. I'm not
quite understanding if there is any benefit to this design:
Postfix -> Amavisd-new -> Postfix/reinject -> Dovecot LMTP
as opposed to this:
Postfix -> Amavisd-new -> Dovecot LMTP
I understand that I'd need either two amavisd processes or policy
banks on alternate ports for submission and sendmail, and I'd still
need that reinject smtpd for the outbound mail:
Postfix -> Amavisd-new -> Postfix/reinject -> remote SMTP
But I don't see any reason why a policy bank can't handle that, with
forward_method in the appropriate policy bank: LMTP to localhost for
incoming, SMTP to Postfix/reinject for outgoing.
Postfix would route incoming mail to amavisd via a virtual_transport
setting, and route outgoing to the other amavisd port (i.e., 10024)
with a check_client_access static:filter,smtp:[127.0.0.1]:10024
restriction. (I'm not sure if the comma will work in a static: map,
but if it doesn't I know several workarounds. :) ) I'd only need a
content_filter setting as an -o on pickup(8).
Does this make sense? I hate the log clutter of the double-pass
through Postfix, so if I can avoid it, I will.
--
http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting
Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
