Re: [dspam-users] DSPAM: Multiaddress message delivery

> Hello Sergey,
Hi, Patrick again :-)
>
> Your problem is about how the SMTP (postfix) works normally.
> There is nothing about amavisd and dspam here since they are the mail
> filter only.
>
> If the incoming mails contains both local and public recipients, the
> smtp has to manage them one by one, and hence they are assigned with
> different msg.id.

Yes, i understand it, but the essence is that both recipients are on the
same server and also both local. It's also clear for me, that in such
the case message must be copied once for each final recipient (i.e. for
each mailbox since all destinations are local) but only on the last
stage of delivery (by maildrop service). It's not desirable for me to
check message against viruses and spam status for each recipient.
It will enough in my installation to do it once per message
independently of the number of recipients.

Is it possible to implement in Postfix/Dspam ?
What's your opinion?

Thanks / Regards
Sergey Ivakin

> the reason is simply to explain because mails could be relayed to other
> smtp and they are kept in mail queue one by one to prepare different
> mailling status.
> (What happen if one of the recipients get bounced,deferred or rejected?
> They are not the same!)
>
> Amavisd will take all the recipients (including local and public), and
> then dspam will take the local mail only (if you config the dspam for
> incoming mails only).
> Your maillog is normal.
>
> I have to say it is quite difficult to implement dspam with amavisd on a
> single gateway (dspam for incoming, but amavisd for both incoming and
> outgoing mails).

>
> My system has divided the client smtp and server-side smtp (mx ,
> incoming only) into two seperate servers.
>
> regards
> Patrick
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sergey D. Ivakin" <ivakin@novoship.ru>
> To: <patrick@patricktsang.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [dspam-users] DSPAM: Multiaddress message delivery
>
>
>>
>> Patrick, thanks for quick reply.
>>
>> Patrick T. Tsang wrote:
>> > Hello Sergey,
>> >
>> >
>> >> We have Postfix installation with chained DSPAM and Amavisd-New >>
>> deployed
>> >> as Postix after queue filters according to well known
>> >> recommendations.
>> >>
>> >> Every incoming message is splitted by DSPAM to several ones
>> according >> to
>> >> destinations and then every address processed by DSPAM itself and two
>> >> additional antiviruses with help of AMAVISD.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry, I don't understand.
>> > Why the incoming message is "splitted"? and how it can be "splitted"
>> by dspam?
>> >
>> > My understanding is:
>> > With help of Amavisd-new, all the incoming emails are injected into
>> dspam, and there are more than one recipients in dspam.
>> > the result is that these copied emails (according to the number of
>> recipients) will be checked against two antivirus plugins.
>> >
>> > And, which goes first?
>> > Postfix -> amavisd -> dspam -> postfix -> ..?
>> > or
>> > Postfix -> dspam -> postfix -> amavisd - > postfix -> ..?
>>
>> The second scheme is applied to my installation.
>> i.e. Postfix -> Dspam -> Postfix -> Amavisd -> Postfix -> Maildrop.
>> The last stage may vary if message is forwarded to another domain.
>>
>> Now about splitting:
>> please find herebelow part of the internet headers of the example
>> message sent to 2 recipients with mailboxes hosted on the same server.
>>
>>
>> ======================================First Mailbox/message:
>>
>> ........
>> Delivered-To: user-1@domain.com
>> Received: from localhost (localhost.domain.com [127.0.0.1])
>> by antivirus.domain.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7EC5CDB7
>> for <user-1@domain.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:51 +0300
>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at domain.com
>> Received: from mailsrv.domain.com ([127.0.0.1])
>> by localhost (mailsrv.domain.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port
>> 10024) with ESMTP id wpHH19-XirsC for <user-1@domain.com>;
>> Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:49
>> Received: from localhost (localhost.domain.com [127.0.0.1])
>> by dspam.domain.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F21255CDAA
>> for <user-1@domain.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:49
>> Received: from host-1.domain.com (host-1.domain.com [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx])
>> by mailsrv.domain.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D368C5CDA6;
>> Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:49
>> Received: from host-2.domain.com (host-2.domain.com [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx])
>> by host-1.domain.com (ESMTP mail server) with ESMTP id
>> A7Bndop022013; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:39
>> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:36 +0300
>> From: user <user@domain-2.com>
>> .........................
>> Message-ID: <1533289349.20061107144936@domain.com>
>> To: user-1@domain.com, user-2@domain.com
>> .........................
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted
>> X-DSPAM-Processed: Tue Nov 7 14:49:49 2006
>> X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899
>> X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
>> X-DSPAM-Signature: 1,455072dd105201299928556
>> X-Filter-Agent: maildrop 2.0.2 Copyright 1998-2005 Double Precision,
>> Inc. on mailsrv
>> .........
>>
>> Text of the message
>>
>> ======================================Second Mailbox/message:
>>
>> ........
>> Delivered-To: user-2@domain.com
>> Received: from localhost (localhost.domain.com [127.0.0.1])
>> by antivirus.domain.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376695CDB8
>> for <user-2@domain.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:51 +0300
>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at domain.com
>> Received: from mailsrv.domain.com ([127.0.0.1])
>> by localhost (mailsrv.domain.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port
>> 10024) with ESMTP id HK3kntkIIhbl for <user-2@domain.com>;
>> Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:50
>> Received: from localhost (localhost.domain.com [127.0.0.1])
>> by dspam.domain.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0578A5CDAF
>> for <user-2@domain.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:50
>> Received: from host-1.domain.com (host-1.domain.com [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx])
>> by mailsrv.domain.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D368C5CDA6;
>> Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:49
>> Received: from host-2.domain.com (host-2.domain.com [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx])
>> by host-1.domain.com (ESMTP mail server) with ESMTP id
>> A7Bndop022013; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:39
>> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:49:36 +0300
>> From: user <user@domain-2.com>
>> .........................
>> Message-ID: <1533289349.20061107144936@domain.com>
>> To: user-1@domain.com, user-2@domain.com
>> .........................
>> X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted
>> X-DSPAM-Processed: Tue Nov 7 14:49:50 2006
>> X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9900
>> X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
>> X-DSPAM-Signature: 1027,455072de10520262354351
>> X-Filter-Agent: maildrop 2.0.2 Copyright 1998-2005 Double Precision,
>> Inc. on mailsrv
>> ........................
>>
>> Text of the message
>>
>> ===========================================================================
>>
>>
>> Please pay attention on different message ids and final destinations
>> after dspam processing (The 3-rd "Received" header where the message
>> is got by dspam.domain.com).
>> Does this record mean that original message has been splitted on two
>> and than processed twice by amavisd? I think just so.
>>
>> >
>> > Am I correct?
>> >
>> >
>> >> Really we needn't this behaviour due to the our organization
>> structure.
>> >> And even more - adding always_bcc property to postfix produces
>> undesirable result - every message get copied several times!
>> >>
>> > yes, always_bcc is bad.
>> >
>> >
>> >> This is a question:
>> >> Is any way to make DSPAM not to split original message on by
>> >> destinations emails hence use ONE single global policy for all
>> >> email traffic flowing through DSPAM?
>> >
>> > My dspam accepts two copies of incoming emails, the user and the
>> globaluser.
>> > The globaluser is for global rules.
>> > I apply the parameter in dspam shell. It works.
>> >
>> > ie. --user $user $globaluser
>> >
>>
>> DSPAM works in daemon/server mode.
>> Thanks for hint, 'll try.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> I've checked - Global groups do not resolve this problem.
>> >> I also trayed to add "--user globaluser@domain.com" to
>> ServerParameters
>> >> property - also without positive result.
>> >>
>> >> Any suggestions?
>> >>
>> >> Sergey Ivakin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> Regards
>> Sergey Ivakin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 7 15:45:22 2006