Milter Suggestions

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek
I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used MIMEDefang
to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the bodies, etc. However, I
can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1.

Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3?

Thanks,
Kirk Bocek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Wietse Venema
Kirk Bocek:
> I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used MIMEDefang
> to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the bodies, etc. However, I
> can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1.

What is the error message? Sheesh.

        Wietse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Kirk Bocek:
>> I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used MIMEDefang
>> to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the bodies, etc. However, I
>> can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1.
>
> What is the error message? Sheesh.

Well, don't get huffy about it... :)

When I add the MIMEDefang socket to smtpd_milters, nothing happens: no error
messages and modifications are not made.

After adding MIMEDefang to non_smptd_milters I see:

May  8 10:45:50 server2 mimedefang[10887]: MIMEDefang-2.64:
st_optionneg[1077942592]: 0x3d does not fulfill action requirements 0x3f
May  8 10:45:50 server2 postfix/cleanup[10897]: warning: milter
unix:/var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.soc
k: can't read SMFIC_OPTNEG reply packet header: Success
May  8 10:45:50 server2 postfix/cleanup[10897]: warning: milter
unix:/var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock: read error in initial handshake

The Milter README seems to say that postfix 2.3 doesn't support requests to
modify message bodies which is something I need to do. So what I'm asking is
how are others are modifying messages.

Kirk Bocek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Bill Cole-3
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
At 10:56 AM -0700 5/8/08, Kirk Bocek wrote:
>I am upgrading a server from sendmail to postfix. I previously used
>MIMEDefang to manipulate messages: add headers, add text to the
>bodies, etc. However, I can't seem to get MIMEDefang to work with
>postfix 2.3.3 under CentOS 5.1.

http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html

A key fact on that page:

* Postfix 2.3 does not support Milter requests to replace the message body.

If you have a working MIMEDefang configuration that you'd rather not
translate into some other sort of tool that works with 2.3.3, you can
use a 2.4.x or 2.5.x version of postfix and get body replacement,
which is necessary to do the modifications you describe. I have
dropped in Postfix 2.4.x in place of Sendmail on systems using
MIMEDefang without needing to change the MIMEDefang setup at all.

>Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3?

You *should* be able to reproduce what you are doing in MIMEDefang
with amavisd-new and altermime or Anomy Sanitizer, but that may
depend on exactly what you are doing with MIMEDefang.

The positive side to switching to that approach is that it is a more
common toolset with Postfix than is MIMEDefang, so there's a richer
potential for "community support" when you need it. With MIMEDefang
and a modern version of Postfix you may have less work up front, but
you are largely on your own if you were to run into issues.


--
Bill Cole                                  
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Victor Duchovni
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:25:06AM -0700, Kirk Bocek wrote:

> The Milter README seems to say that postfix 2.3 doesn't support requests to
> modify message bodies which is something I need to do. So what I'm asking
> is how are others are modifying messages.

Not surprisingly, by using Postfix 2.4 (.7) or 2.5 (.1).

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[hidden email]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Wietse Venema
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
Kirk Bocek:
> The Milter README seems to say that postfix 2.3 doesn't support requests to
> modify message bodies which is something I need to do. So what I'm asking is
> how are others are modifying messages.

They use Postfix 2.4 or later. Current release is 2.5.

        Wietse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek
In reply to this post by Bill Cole-3


Bill Cole wrote:
> http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html
>
> A key fact on that page:
>
> * Postfix 2.3 does not support Milter requests to replace the message body.

Yep, I see that. Thank you Victor and Wietse for reminding me too. Although
upgrading to 2.4/2.5 is a possibility, Administration will be easier if I
stick to the standard CentOS 5 packages which is unfortunately 2.3.3.

> If you have a working MIMEDefang configuration that you'd rather not
> translate into some other sort of tool that works with 2.3.3, you can
> use a 2.4.x or 2.5.x version of postfix and get body replacement, which
> is necessary to do the modifications you describe. I have dropped in
> Postfix 2.4.x in place of Sendmail on systems using MIMEDefang without
> needing to change the MIMEDefang setup at all.

Nope, I am not tied to MIMEDefang at all.

>> Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3?
>
> You *should* be able to reproduce what you are doing in MIMEDefang with
> amavisd-new and altermime or Anomy Sanitizer, but that may depend on
> exactly what you are doing with MIMEDefang.
>
> The positive side to switching to that approach is that it is a more
> common toolset with Postfix than is MIMEDefang, so there's a richer
> potential for "community support" when you need it. With MIMEDefang and
> a modern version of Postfix you may have less work up front, but you are
> largely on your own if you were to run into issues.

I kinda gathered from the lack of resources that MIMEDefang isn't a good match
with postfix. I will take a look at the tools you recommend.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Kirk Bocek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek
Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:

> Kirk Bocek wrote:
>
>>
>> I kinda gathered from the lack of resources that MIMEDefang isn't a
>> good match with postfix. I will take a look at the tools you recommend.
>
> Also, take a look at j-chkmail : http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr
>
> Supported under sendmail and postfix.
>

Thank you. Will do.

Kirk Bocek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

mouss-2
In reply to this post by Kirk Bocek
Kirk Bocek wrote:

>
>
> Bill Cole wrote:
>> http://www.postfix.org/MILTER_README.html
>>
>> A key fact on that page:
>>
>> * Postfix 2.3 does not support Milter requests to replace the message
>> body.
>
> Yep, I see that. Thank you Victor and Wietse for reminding me too.
> Although upgrading to 2.4/2.5 is a possibility, Administration will be
> easier if I stick to the standard CentOS 5 packages which is
> unfortunately 2.3.3.

it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd
packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum
.repo file.
>
>> If you have a working MIMEDefang configuration that you'd rather not
>> translate into some other sort of tool that works with 2.3.3, you can
>> use a 2.4.x or 2.5.x version of postfix and get body replacement,
>> which is necessary to do the modifications you describe. I have
>> dropped in Postfix 2.4.x in place of Sendmail on systems using
>> MIMEDefang without needing to change the MIMEDefang setup at all.
>
> Nope, I am not tied to MIMEDefang at all.

a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content filter
mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do?

>
>>> Can anyone suggest a similar utility that will work with postfix 2.3.3?
>>
>> You *should* be able to reproduce what you are doing in MIMEDefang
>> with amavisd-new and altermime or Anomy Sanitizer, but that may
>> depend on exactly what you are doing with MIMEDefang.
>>
>> The positive side to switching to that approach is that it is a more
>> common toolset with Postfix than is MIMEDefang, so there's a richer
>> potential for "community support" when you need it. With MIMEDefang
>> and a modern version of Postfix you may have less work up front, but
>> you are largely on your own if you were to run into issues.
>
> I kinda gathered from the lack of resources that MIMEDefang isn't a
> good match with postfix. I will take a look at the tools you recommend.
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> Kirk Bocek

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek


mouss wrote:
> it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd
> packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum
> .repo file.

I'll take a look at those repos. I generally stick to atrpms or dag and
neither offers postfix.

>
> a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content filter
> mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do?

I'm hosting a couple of aliases. Just need to add a 'Reply-To' header and
footer to the message body.

Kirk Bocek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

mouss-2
Kirk Bocek wrote:
>
>
> mouss wrote:
>> it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd
>> packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum
>> .repo file.
>
> I'll take a look at those repos.

It's not a repo. you need to download the rpm or srpm (srpm is better if
you have a build environment. this way you can select what features to
build).

> I generally stick to atrpms or dag and neither offers postfix.


>
>>
>> a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content
>> filter mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do?
>
> I'm hosting a couple of aliases. Just need to add a 'Reply-To' header
> and footer to the message body.

check amavisd-new + altermime. why do you add a Reply-To header? do you
change the From header?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek
In reply to this post by mouss-2


mouss wrote:

> Kirk Bocek wrote:
>>
>>
>> mouss wrote:
>>> it's actually easy to use newer versions (you can use Simon J. Mudd
>>> packages or srpms). you just need to exclude postfix* from your yum
>>> .repo file.
>>
>> I'll take a look at those repos.
>
> It's not a repo. you need to download the rpm or srpm (srpm is better if
> you have a build environment. this way you can select what features to
> build).

Duh, my bad. Late in the day and I misconstrued your message. Yes, I know how
to rebuild an SRPM.

>>> a common choice is amavisd-new, in an (after the queue) content
>>> filter mode. but what kind of rewrite do you do?
>>
>> I'm hosting a couple of aliases. Just need to add a 'Reply-To' header
>> and footer to the message body.
>
> check amavisd-new + altermime. why do you add a Reply-To header? do you
> change the From header?

Bill Cole has suggested this combination too. I will look at it.

The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar with
all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private alias
for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so we've
been doing it.

Thanks for your help.

Kirk Bocek

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

mouss-2
Kirk Bocek wrote:
>
> [snip]
> The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar
> with
> all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private
> alias
> for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so
> we've
> been doing it.

are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Noel Jones-2
mouss wrote:

> Kirk Bocek wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar
>> with
>> all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private
>> alias
>> for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so
>> we've
>> been doing it.
>
> are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical?
>

Or if it's static information (sender X should always have
reply-to of Y), a check_sender_access map would do...
something like:

[hidden email]  PREPEND Reply-to: <[hidden email]>



--
Noel Jones
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek
In reply to this post by mouss-2


mouss wrote:

> Kirk Bocek wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am familiar
>> with
>> all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private
>> alias
>> for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so
>> we've
>> been doing it.
>
> are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical?

A quicky scan of canonical seems to say that feature is only related to
address rewriting. I still need to add a footer.

Before you respond, See the new thread I'm going to start regarding AlterMime.

Thanks,
Kirk Bocek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Milter Suggestions

Kirk Bocek
In reply to this post by Noel Jones-2


Noel Jones wrote:

> mouss wrote:
>> Kirk Bocek wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>> The Reply-To header is addressed back to the alias. Yes, I am
>>> familiar with
>>> all the arguments *against* this behavior. However, this is a private
>>> alias
>>> for some of my friends and it's worked really well for the year or so
>>> we've
>>> been doing it.
>>
>> are you sure you can't get the same feature with canonical?
>>
>
> Or if it's static information (sender X should always have reply-to of
> Y), a check_sender_access map would do... something like:
>
> [hidden email]  PREPEND Reply-to: <[hidden email]>

Between you and mouss, sounds like address manipulation is not an issue here.
However I still need to find a way to manipulate message *bodies*.

Thanks,
Kirk Bocek
Loading...