Bug 4262 - RFE: spamd & spamc separation
Summary: RFE: spamd & spamc separation
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 579
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: spamc/spamd (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All Linux
: P5 enhancement
Target Milestone: Undefined
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-04-15 06:05 UTC by John Madden
Modified: 2005-04-16 02:50 UTC (History)
0 users



Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description John Madden 2005-04-15 06:05:13 UTC
This isn't really a "request" per say -- more of an idea.

Currently, spamd deals with all the user related config options etc. I think
this should be moved to spamc instead.

Currently, spamd is a handy way to combine spam filtering for a network to a
single place. It reduces the load, is network aware (append other spamd
positives here!). However, it still needs access to user's home directories for
bayes, whitelisting, user rules and whatever else.

I think spamd should be able to run on a server that doesn't have access to
these things, but users should still be able to use them. In my mind, this means
adding code to spamc to deal with all the user end of things.

This would allow spamd to be extra secure, without losing functionality. For
instance (if I'm still right about this), spamd needs to run as root in order to
make use of user rules, but running as root and allowing user rules is a
security hazard. But, if spamc either parsed and scored using only the user
rules, or passed the user rules to spamd, then they can still be used, and spamd
can easily be run as non-root while maintaining the functionality. 

Of course, this means a major rewrite of a lot of spamc, and some bits of spamd.
spamc would have to deal with whitelisting and auto-whitelisting, bayes,
autolearning and anything else that requires reading / writing anything in
~/.spamassassin.

I'm sure there are things that I haven't thought of, that the developers will be
immediately aware of, but I said I'd post this anyway just to see the feedback
(if any!). Like I said, this isn't a request, but I think it's a good idea.
Comment 1 John Madden 2005-04-15 06:42:46 UTC
Sorry. This really should've been sent to the dev list. I didn't notice it had
been assigned to security.
Comment 2 John Madden 2005-04-16 10:50:20 UTC
Just read through #579 -- same ideas as this one. Closing as duplicate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 579 ***