[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.99.56pre4 config help

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 01:58:59PM +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:

> So, while the idea of separating smtp reception from routing
> seems attractive, it probably would be much better to do
> routing in the course of SMTP session, and report failures
> synchronously.  This would require less resources from the
> local server and generate less traffic on the Net.  Additional
> benefit of combining smtpserver and router into one entity
> would be that smtp policy could be processed by router that
> posesses of better tools for that.
> It just came to me that such reorganization is not as
> unrealistic as it seems: smtpserver and router could still
> be separate processes, talking over unix domain socket or
> something; at the end of session smtpserver could pass the
> file to the router much the same way as it currently does for
> contentfilter.  Router could either pass the message to the
> scheduler queue and report success to the smtpserver, or erase
> the file and report failure.
> Am I mad or what?

I thought that smtpserver and router were decoupled because of
possible security problems in the router (or router scripts to
be precise). Or are we talking about different things?

BTW, what is the correct syntax of ROUTEUSER_IN_ABNORMAL_UNIX?
Reading the docs, it seems that leaving it empty should enable
checking for home directories (limited interactive user account
checking in smtp transactions without the router), but that does
not seem to be happening.

> Eugene

Ambrose LI Cheuk-Wing  <a.c.li@ieee.org>

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe zmailer" in
the body of a message to majordomo@nic.funet.fi