interested in Postfix support?

Julian Field jkf at
Wed May 22 14:05:46 IST 2002


I would just like to echo what Nick has said. Between us, we *will* get
time to work on your patches at some point hopefully fairly soon, and I
thoroughly agree that a more OO approach would be better. The reason it
isn't is historical and due to the way MailScanner was born :-)

I would much prefer that the development did not fork at this point,
particularly as supporting it will become a lot harder as I won't often
know which version of the code people are talking about. I (very nearly)
single-handedly support all 8,000 sites currently using MailScanner in my
spare time at work, and so extra support load is something that I *really*
care about.

So, if you can, please be patient with us. I hope you appreciate the situation.

Many thanks for your contribution!

At 12:39 22/05/2002, you wrote:
>On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 12:50:01PM +0200, Fredrik Thulin wrote:
> > Since I apparently have made too many changes for Julian to merge my
> patches
> > into MailScanner I am thinking of forking off a "branch" to get more people
> > involved in the development until Julian beleives the code is of such
> quality
> > that it can be put into the official MailScanner he maintains and
> distributes
> > (ie. putting up a CVS repository and a mailing list).
>I will be going over the patches. Once I understand them a bit better (I'm
>not really familiar with postfix), I'll either merge them in or get back to
>you asking for more information/help/whatever.
>There were a few areas when I first looked that I thought I might need
>convincing about (as I said, I'm not familiar with how postfix works, so
>there may well be good reasons for some of the bits that look "odd" to me),
>but I'll give you a shout when I get to looking at it. Feel free to hassle
>me to do so; I've been showered with lots of things to do recently -- most
>of which are not terribly important -- so hassling me gently may well move
>it up the list ;)
>In any case, we'll be hoping to have it all integrated for the next major
>release of mailscanner (which will also have autoconf-based configuration
>and installation, and hopefully something to make updating config files
>easier). Um, what else is on my to-do list?... internal TNEF decoding
>based on the CPAN module, better/more portable locking (again probably
>trying to use the CPAN lockf module iff it is present), more scanners
>supported (and possibly making it easier for third parties to provide
>and maintain scanner support)... and one or two other ideas.
>I'm not saying I'll get all that done, or all into a state which Julian
>will be happy to release ;-)  but that's what I'm aiming at.
>Priorities are autoconf (nearly done), postfix (depending on complexity),
>and locking at the moment.
>Several extra scanners are done (contributed code is merged) but I may need
>to get some more information from the contributors and then get some testers.
>Better get to work I guess...
>Nick Phillips -- nwp at
>Don't Worry, Be Happy.

Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
jkf at         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
                             Southampton SO17 1BJ

More information about the MailScanner mailing list