Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot MTA

Easy configuration of virtual users and a default location setup to handle virtual users.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Aleksey Tsvetkov

wrote:

Hi! It is possible to look towards Exim. To take as a basis ACL system.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:07:12 +0100 Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi writes:

...

Hi all,

I've never really wanted to create my own MTA, because I like Postfix quite a lot. And I always thought it would require a horribly lot of time to be able to create something that was anywhere even close to having Postfix's features. (I would shudder to even think about recreating Dovecot from scratch nowadays.) But slowly over time I've also been thinking of ways how things could be done a bit better, and I think I have enough ideas to start thinking about Dovecot MTA more seriously in a few more months (after my current busy schedule calms down a bit). And (unlike Dovecot!) I'm not planning on taking over the world with the MTA (or at least not very quickly), but it would definitely be useful for many installations I know of.

My main design goals for the MTA are:

• In normal load don't queue mails, just continue delivering the mail through different processes/services until it succeeds or fails, and only after that return ok/failure to the SMTP client. So there's no (forced) post-queue filtering, everything would normally happen pre-queue. This is required because in Germany (and EU in general?) you aren't allowed to just drop spams after SMTP server has responsed OK to the client, even if you’re 100% sure it’s a spam. So this would also mean that the SMTP DATA replies will come more slowly, which means that the SMTP server must be able to handle a lot more concurrent SMTP connections, which means that in large installations the smtpd process must be able to asynchronously handle multiple SMTP client connections.

• In some cases you can't really avoid placing mails into a queue. This could be because of temporary failures or maybe because of an abnormal load spike. A mail queue in local disk isn't very nice though, because if the local disk dies, the queued mails are lost. Dovecot MTA will allow the queue to be in object storage and it will also likely support replication (similar to current dsync replication). In both of these cases if a server dies, another server can quickly take over its queue and continue handling it.

• Dovecot MTA is a new product, which means we can add some requirements to how it's being used, especially related to securely sending emails between servers. It could do a bunch of checks at startup and fail to even start if everything isn't correct. Here are some things I had in mind - not sure if all of these are good ideas or not:

• Require DKIM configuration. All outgoing mails will be DKIM signed.
• Require the domain’s DNS to contain _submission._tcp SRV record (and actually might as well require _imap._tcp too)
• Require SSL certificates to be configured and always allow remote to use STARTTLS
• Require DANE TLSA record to exist and match the server's configured SSL cert
• Have very good (and strict?) DNSSEC support. If we know a remote server is supposed to have valid DNSSEC entries, but doesn't, fail to deliver mail entirely?
• Add a new DNS record that advertises this is a Dovecot MTA (or compatible). If such entry is found (especially when correctness is guaranteed by DNSSEC), the email sender can assume that certain features exist and work correctly. If they don't, it could indicate an attack and the mail sending should be retried later. This DNS record would of course be good to try to standardize.

• Configuration: It would take years to implement all of the settings that Postfix has, but I think it's not going to be necessary. In fact I think the number of new settings to dovecot.conf that Dovecot MTA requires would be very minimal. Instead nearly all of the configuration could be done using Sieve scripts. We'd need to implement some new MTA-specific Sieve extensions and a few core features/configurations/databases that the scripts can use, but after that there wouldn't be really any limits to what could be done with them.

• Try to implement as many existing interfaces as possible (e.g. Milter and various Postfix APIs like policy servers) so that it wouldn’t be necessary to reimplement all the tools and filters.

So perhaps something like this could be done in time for Dovecot v2.4. Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions?

-- Best regards, Aleksey Tsvetkov System Administrator Company Grand Vision tel. +7(495)933-39-79, ext. 184

-- Daniel Reinhardt cryptodan@cryptodan.net http://www.cryptodan.net 301-875-7018(c) 410-455-0488(h)