Hello list, I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot. I have to combine both. One (and the only) idea is to call a virusscanner a shellscript, installed as PostLoginScript. But I see multiple disadvantages: 1. it's a shellscript which tents to be slow. 2. it's called *on* the mailbox-host, not on a dedicated proxy 3. I think it's slow and I dont't know howto measure. 4. I thint it's slow. 5. I think it's slow. 6. I like a "Plan B" Any suggestions !? Thanks, Andreas -- ######################################################################## # # Andreas Schulze # https://andreasschulze.de # # GnuPG Key-ID: A7DBA67F, https://andreasschulze.de/sca.asc # GnuPG Fingerprint: 14C1 39A8 CE6D 6BE0 28C6 5652 03B5 6793 A7DB A67F # # $Id: .signature,v 1.3 2007-12-27 21:13:36 sca Exp $ ######################################################################## -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GnuPG-Signatur.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 315 bytes Desc: digitale Signatur dieser Nachricht von Andreas Schulze URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20100411/c1309676/attachment-0002.bin>
* Andreas Schulze <sca at andreasschulze.de>:> Hello list, > > I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability > to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot. > I have to combine both. > > One (and the only) idea is to call a virusscanner a shellscript, > installed as PostLoginScript. > > But I see multiple disadvantages: > 1. it's a shellscript which tents to be slow.Why slow? All it needs to do is call the daemonized scanner. That's not too slow...> 2. it's called *on* the mailbox-host, not on a dedicated proxyYep.> 3. I think it's slow and I dont't know howto measure. > 4. I thint it's slow. > 5. I think it's slow. > 6. I like a "Plan B"Try it. The hardest part is to only scan mails younger than "last scan". -- Ralf Hildebrandt Gesch?ftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charit? - Universit?tsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962 ralf.hildebrandt at charite.de | http://www.charite.de
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:06:34 +0200 Andreas Schulze wrote:> Hello list, > > I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability > to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot.I like dovecot too. But I think virus-scanning is for the MTA. --Frank
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 08:06:34PM +0200, Andreas Schulze wrote:> Hello list, > > I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability > to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot.p3scan?> I have to combine both. > > One (and the only) idea is to call a virusscanner a shellscript, > installed as PostLoginScript.What do you want: 1. Scan mails with newest database near fetch (IMAP command)? I'm not sure, but I've seen something about that looking into latetst p3scan features. It seems like it supports IMAP and can act as proxy beetween MUA and specified IMAP/POP3 server. I haven't tried it. 2. Just get mails from pop3 server and check it for viruses during delievery to dovecot mail storage? It seems to be work for some MTA filter. 3. You want to mirror remote IMAP store locally and check mails in local copy for viruses (and maybe do some spam checks)? Why not give a try to imapsync and some script around? I'm not finished my own yet... WBR Dmitri Ivanov
Noel Butler schrieb:> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 22:07 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > > >> Frank Elsner <frank at moltke28.B.Shuttle.DE> (Mo 12 Apr 2010 19:18:53 CEST): >> >>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:06:34 +0200 Andreas Schulze wrote: >>> >>>> Hello list, >>>> >>>> I use currently a non-dovecot pop3 proxy which has the ability >>>> to scan all passing mails for viruses. And I like dovecot. >>>> >>> I like dovecot too. But I think virus-scanning is for the MTA. >>> >> IMAP allows for other ways ?into? the mail storage than via the MTA. >> > > > I agree with Frank, virus scanning, and IMHO spam filtering is the job > for the MTA side of things, reject it before it gets near the mail > storage. > > >Hi guys, I agree with Heiko. In my current setup it is _wanted_ to store/move mails via IMAP for usability reasons. So i am looking for at least virus scanning at the delivery point. postfix and dovecot use deliver, so it should be done at this point. Greets, Sven