Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:12:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Dale Scott <dalescott@shaw.ca> To: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> Cc: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: is pkg saying courier and postfix are incompatible? Message-ID: <F7EA154A-8B44-4BA2-9787-2C8FEA8DE987@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: <541BDA6D.3060702@qeng-ho.org> References: <005201cfd2bd$d8ac34d0$8a049e70$@shaw.ca> <9745AE56F096E150A334CBD1@[192.168.1.50]> <D5F199B3-79EF-4CED-B373-EA8CD2E6A265@shaw.ca> <541A7518.7030603@FreeBSD.org> <009601cfd398$51ca0ec0$f55e2c40$@shaw.ca> <541BD0C1.6080509@FreeBSD.org> <541BDA6D.3060702@qeng-ho.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sep 19, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> wrote: >=20 >> On 19/09/2014 07:44, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> On 19/09/2014 00:28, Dale Scott wrote: >>> I installed postfix-2.11.1_4,1 as a pkg and just noticed "pkg info >>> postfix" reports DOVECOT and OPENLDAP options are off. Do I need >>> these in my scenarios? I didn't put a ports tree on this system to >>> see if it was possible to build a system from packages only, but am >>> also not averse to recognizing it was pipe dream (and remember how to >>> use portmaster again). >>=20 >> You can use postfix with dovecot without having to enable the DOVECOT >> option -- as I recall, that's something to do with postfix using the >> dovecot authentication mechanisms. >=20 > That's correct, it's to enable postfix to use dovecot's SASL interface to= authorise users when postfix requires authorisation for mail submission. M= uch nicer to have one mechanism rather than two that might get out of sync.= However, if authorisation is enforced via /etc/passwd or LDAP, you've alre= ady got your mechanism so don't need dovecot's. >=20 >> You only need OPENLDAP turned on for postfix if you want to use ldap >> lookups. (Well Duh!) For a stand-alone system without many users, ldap >> is overkill, and you would generally be better off using lmdb or bdb >> files instead (I prefer lmdb -- seems simpler and to have fewer overhead= s). >=20 > And it's fast, if you have a lot of mail to process. >=20 >>> Is there anything special needed in Dovecot? >>=20 >> No. Either you configure postfix to use dovecot's delivery agent, or >> you make postfix speak LMTP to dovecot: from dovecot's perspective it >> doesn't need to know anything about or do anything differently depending >> on what MTA you're using. >=20 > LMTP has the advantage that postfix and dovecot can be in separate jails = for extra security. Thanks for all the help. I'm building a fully *self-contained* proof-of-con= cept business system with MantisBT as an ISO9000 issue tracker, Tryton for = managing equipment and material loaned to client jobs and returned, OpenLDA= P for single point of authentication (enterprise is MS AD), and mail workin= g between users, Mantis and Tryton. I'll use Mutt in the first round of dem= os, but will provide RoundCube for demo users to access mail themselves (on= ce virtual mail users are working). I'm ignoring security for now, too much= to learn, create keys and configure, and the IT group will have their own = ideas anyway if the POC proceeds to production. Hopefully it won't look too= disjointed, the alternative is maybe funding in 2016 for the IT team to bu= ild the same thing but with better icons (and by clicking through MS wizard= s ;-)) It could be a nice bonus if I could use my desktop Outlook client to retrie= ve all the mail from Dovecot via pop3 and forward it into the enterprise sy= stem so demo users could really experience the POC, but the POC can't conne= ct directly to any enterprise services (e.g mail) for now. Any comments on = this approach? Dale
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F7EA154A-8B44-4BA2-9787-2C8FEA8DE987>