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

Hello Sergey,

I think you are talling about smtp milter.
http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html

I am also trying to implement this for our mail system.

Please post mail in postfix mailling list for your problem.
postfix-users@postfix.org
so, see u in postfix mailling list soon.

Regards
Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergey D. Ivakin" <ivakin@novoship.ru>
To: "Patrick T. Tsang" <patrick@patricktsang.net>;
<dspam-users@lists.nuclearelephant.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:42 PM
Subject: 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 15:53:48 2006