On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 18:42, Mark wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Meng Weng Wong" <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
[snip]
Personally, I would not be surprised if sendmail had complex lookups
(code-wise) of our kind in mind, when they introduced the new "socket"
map.
That's great news! Does it mean we don't need a milter anymore?
Yes. :) All we'd need is one or two lines in a ruleset; that's it.
You would not even need to run your own, local, SPF daemon. A TCP/IP socket
query could be made to a centralized SPFBL, like you do with any other
DNSBL.
The news of the new map "socket" probably escaped the attention of many, as
Sorry, I know this is an old thread, I'm a little behind on my reading
of this list.
I've been lurking on this list for a while and couldn't resist piping
in on this topic. I've been playing with the socket map lately. I've
patched sendmail 8.12.11 with it and I've been trying to integrate it
with virtual domains in cyrus-imapd. The newest cyrus-imapd has a
bundled socket map daemon. I'm having some issues, but it's mostly due
to my rusty ruleset writing skills and the lack of good m4 files already
written to integrated it well with cyrus.
I just want to echo that, from what I've seen, yes, there are many
possibilities for this new socket map. It's a *much* simpler interface
than the milter interface. Although it might not be as flexible as
milter it can serve many purposes for which a milter might be considered
overkill. It appears to be a lightweight protocol suitable for high
volume queries. And, of course, you can put anything you want on the
backend as long as your server speaks the simple socket map protocol.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets