Mailscanner & Postfix milter
Daniel L. Miller
mailscanner and Postfix now cooperate? Or does Mailscanner continue to
poke the internals of Postfix in an immature, illegal, immoral, and
fattening manner?
--
Daniel
Noel Jones
In fact the situation is likely to be much worse (and possibly
hopeless for mailscanner's current design) if one has active miters.
Sadly, mailscanner continues to be "Not Recommended".
--
Noel Jones
Wietse Venema
If Mailscanner can speak the Milter protocol, great. Header
modifications are already supported in Postfix 2.3. Body modifications
with some luck in Postfix 2.4.
Direct queue file modification no longer works with Mailscanner
versions that don't recognize the new PTR records that Postfix
needs for in-place editing.
Wietse
Csillag Tamas
Take a look here:
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2004-01/3562.html
--
"Real programmers can write assembly code in any language."
-- Larry Wall
CSILLAG Tamas (cstamas) - http://digitus.itk.ppke.hu/~cstamas
Mike Jakubik
I disagree. I have been using postfix and mailscanner for almost two
years now, at multiple sites, small and large, and i've yet to have a
problem with the combination. Mailscanner is a wonderful and modern
framework for fighting spam/viruses/fraud/etc, much better than amavis,
which i use to use before. Forking a perl process to scan each message
in real time is not very efficient, having a daemon running which scans
messages in batch and effectively separates itself from the SMTP side is
a much better idea imho. If mailscanner goes down for some reason, mail
will continue to be accepted and saved. If postfix ever truly stops
working with mailscanner, i will be very disappointed as i love postfix,
and have been using it since version 1.x. However in that scenario, i
would be forced to switch to Exim, as there are no good alternatives to
mailscanner
Csillag Tamas
> Noel Jones wrote:
> >At 03:58 PM 12/12/2006, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> >Sadly, mailscanner continues to be "Not Recommended".
> >
>
> which i use to use before. Forking a perl process to scan each message
> in real time is not very efficient, having a daemon running which scans
> messages in batch and effectively separates itself from the SMTP side is
> a much better idea imho.
I agree.
> If mailscanner goes down for some reason, mail
> will continue to be accepted and saved.
Well AFAIK that's also true for amavis. Postfix will queue the mails and
send once amavis becomes available.
> If postfix ever truly stops
> working with mailscanner, i will be very disappointed as i love postfix,
> and have been using it since version 1.x. However in that scenario, i
> would be forced to switch to Exim, as there are no good alternatives to
> mailscanner
Read my other mail in this thread.
--
It never was a patch. Patches are for qmail. -- Wietse Venema
Ralf Hildebrandt
> Forking a perl process to scan each message in real time is not very efficient,
And that's not how amavisd-new works.
> having a daemon running which scans
> messages in batch and effectively separates itself from the SMTP side is
> a much better idea imho.
amavisd-new is separated from the SMTP side. (It speaks LMTP)
> If mailscanner goes down for some reason, mail
> will continue to be accepted and saved.
Same with amavisd-new.
So I faile to see the difference here.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (Ralf.Hil...@charite.de) pl...@charite.de
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.postfix-buch.com
The internets provide an exciting new opportunity to grind the
government's boot waffle onto the collective face of the proles.
Mike Jakubik
> Same with amavisd-new.
>
> So I faile to see the difference here.
>
>
Just because amavisd-new has become daemonized, doesn't mean there is no
difference between mailscanner. I find mailscanner much more feature
full, easier to configure, and easier to extend to do things such as
custom scans and sql based logging.
Noel Jones
Mailscanner has an admirable feature set, and looks to be easy to configure.
This doesn't change the documented fact that it can randomly truncate
mail, with no indication in logs that there may be a problem.
This isn't politics or a feud, just a documented fact. Incidental
evidence of "I've never seen a problem" does not change the facts.
I wish the mailscanner people would stop taking this personally and
address the problem.
Over and out.
--
Noel Jones
Mike Jakubik
> Mailscanner has an admirable feature set, and looks to be easy to
> configure.
> This doesn't change the documented fact that it can randomly truncate
> mail, with no indication in logs that there may be a problem.
> This isn't politics or a feud, just a documented fact. Incidental
> evidence of "I've never seen a problem" does not change the facts.
>
Could you backup this documented fact please? Are you sure you are not
referring to a bug in an obsolete version of mailscanner? If this was an
issue, im quite certain some of my users would complain.
Mark Martinec
> Could you backup this documented fact please? Are you sure you are not
> referring to a bug in an obsolete version of mailscanner? If this was an
> issue, im quite certain some of my users would complain.
Look at its code. There are literally hundreds of instances where a
status from a system call is just ignored (getline, print, close, flush,
stat, mkdir, chown, unlink, exec, system..., sometimes even: open).
_Anything_ can happen, and you will never know what hit you,
much less be able to track it down easily, especially if the
problem is intermittent.
Mark
Daniel L. Miller
> On Thursday December 14 2006 07:30, Mike Jakubik wrote:
>
>> Could you backup this documented fact please? Are you sure you are not
>> referring to a bug in an obsolete version of mailscanner? If this was an
>> issue, im quite certain some of my users would complain.
>>
>
> Look at its code. There are literally hundreds of instances where a
> status from a system call is just ignored (getline, print, close, flush,
> stat, mkdir, chown, unlink, exec, system..., sometimes even: open).
>
--
Daniel
Mark Martinec
> > status from a system call is just ignored (getline, print, close, flush,
> > stat, mkdir, chown, unlink, exec, system..., sometimes even: open).
>
> Does this evaluation still apply to the current version of mailscanner?
It applies to the July 2006 version (4.55.7-1 I believe).
Don't know if there were any changes in this area later on.
Mark