| 1 |
>> so unless you need to perform complex |
| 2 |
>> mail routing you could directly send the filtered mail to the windows |
| 3 |
>> server. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Hmm... interesting points. But can it still do the 2nd part of the |
| 6 |
> equation, that is, perform outgoing routing? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That's what I meant with "complex mail routing" :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The problem with having two passes through postfix in the mail routing |
| 11 |
chain is that you either run two separate postfix instances with |
| 12 |
independent configurations or you have to figure out a robust way to |
| 13 |
avoid loops. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It can be done, it's just more difficult :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Of course I can have postfix to skip amavisd for outgoing emails, but |
| 18 |
> then I guess I'll lose amavisd's automated whitelisting (the so-called |
| 19 |
> 'pen pal' feature). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
True. In my case that's not really a problem as we only have amavisd add |
| 22 |
a "spam level" header to messages; actually deleting spam is left to the |
| 23 |
clients, and most clients that support user-configurable spam policies |
| 24 |
and rulesets can do some sort of address whitelisting. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
andrea |
Archives