Unparsable TNEF woes after upgrade to 3.21-1

[David W. Fry]

Greetings All!

I upgraded to MailScanner ver. #3.21-1 without
incident last week but then started getting
complaints about problems with nemesis Outlook
and attachments that were getting mangled into oblivion.

Here is the deal .. I use Sophos; so in the mailscanner.conf
file I have left the TNEF expansion settings at:

Expand TNEF = no

Deliver unparsable TNEF = yes

.... to accomodate those users who were having
issues ...

this worked fine until the upgrade to 3.21-1
FYI, I am using my mailscanner.conf file from
the previous version which was 3.15

Here is an example of what I saw this afternoon
for an end-user who was sending out 3 word documents
(her Outlook client is set to rich text format)

Jul 12 15:04:13 mailscanner[3187]: Cannot parse
/var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/g6CK49m08326.header and
/var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/dfg6CK49m08326, write-open
/var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/winmail.dat: No such file or
directory at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.0/MIME/Body.pm line 414.

Jul 12 15:04:17 mailscanner[3187]: Scanned 3 messages,
168027 bytes in 4 seconds

Jul 12 15:04:17 mailscanner[3187]: Saved entire message to /var/spool/
MailScanner/quarantine/20020712/g6CK49m08326

Jul 12 15:04:17 mailscanner[3187]: Failed to link message body between
queues (/var/spool/mqueue/dfg6CK3nm08303 -->
/var/spool/mqueue.in/dfg6CK3nm08303)

Jul 12 15:04:17 mailscanner[3187]: Failed to link message body between
queues (/var/spool/mqueue/dfg6CK3nm08301 -->
/var/spool/mqueue.in/dfg6CK3nm08301)

Jul 12 15:04:17 mailscanner[3187]: Deleting unparsable message g6CK49m08326

Again, I am using my ver. # 3.15 mailscanner.conf file with this new version
but I did 'diff' them and really didn't seeing anything that should be a
showstopper.  The above is just one log example of what is going on.

I see in the new mailscanner.conf file that there is an option to use the
internal TNEF expander but I was under the impression that since I am
using Sophos .. that point is moot.  or is it??

Any ideas?  I have grumbling users massing.  :-)

Of course I would love to have a policy that everyone jettison
the rich text format and use plain-text but that that won't be
happening anytime soon!

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions.  Thank you in advance!

Sincerely,

David Fry
Lan Analyst
IFR Systems