On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 00:01, Patrick Ben Koetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]>: > > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:17, Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > ... > > > > I would think I want to use MILTER. > > > > On 08.02.19 17:34, Dominic Raferd wrote: > > > I too am interested in running amavis as milter (Patrick has written > > > some instructions in German), but the standard and more common setup, > > > and the one which you are emulating at present, is as content filter > > > instead, and I think you should focus on getting that working first. > > > > I use milter when receiving mail from outside (mail servers). > > When I configured milter on users connections, users were complaining that > > sending mail takes too long. > > Thus, clients on submission,smtps ports (and when possible, port 25 clients > > on internal interface) use content_filter. > > > So am I. And it conforms with German jurisdiction. And yes, *SIGH* it is > important to comply. ;)
Thanks Matus and Patrick for pointing that out. It would certainly be a complexifier [(c) J Bezos] to have to run it both as milter and content_filter. But in my case I whitelist emails from our domains within amavis so they would process quickly even when it runs as milter. (I realise this whitelisting carries some risk, but in our situation I think it is minimal.) Alternatively I suppose one could have a different length child_timeout for auth and non-auth mails (via a policy bank, though I prefer to avoid these) i.e. a short timeout for auth mails (say 3-4 seconds) and longer for non-auth (say 20 seconds) - this way (depending on server load and power) most auth mails (and the overwhelming majority of non-auth) would still get checked.
