mailscanner 4.2x and postfix 2.0.14 do play well together

[Eduardo Andre]

Hi James,

I run MailScanner 4.22 with Postfix 2.0.14.
All work fine.

Att

Eduardo


> To make a long story short, only 1.1.11+ and less than 2, not 3 nor
> 3 - 1 and greater than zero... (sorry.;-) and mailscanner can work
> in the dual postfix config.
>
> Every combo and fix I've tried of postfix 2+ leaves me with corrupted
> queue files on outgoing mail (in the outgoing postfix).
> I've not dived into the queue file problem beyond trying to trace a
> test message. It looks ok in the inbound postfix, mailscanner gets
> it in its queue OK. When it is put into the outgoing postfix I get this:
>
> Aug 27 17:14:52 sunblade1 postfix/postfix-script: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> starting the Postfix mail system
> Aug 27 17:14:53 sunblade1 postfix/master[27933]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> daemon started -- version 2.0.14-20030812
> Aug 27 17:14:55 sunblade1 MailScanner[27946]: MailScanner E-Mail Virus
> Scanner version 4.22-5 starting...
> Aug 27 17:14:55 sunblade1 MailScanner[27946]: Using locktype = flock
> Aug 27 17:15:05 sunblade1 MailScanner[27947]: MailScanner E-Mail Virus
> Scanner version 4.22-5 starting...
> Aug 27 17:15:06 sunblade1 MailScanner[27947]: Using locktype = flock
> Aug 27 17:15:15 sunblade1 MailScanner[27948]: MailScanner E-Mail Virus
> Scanner version 4.22-5 starting...
> Aug 27 17:15:16 sunblade1 MailScanner[27948]: Using locktype = flock
> Aug 27 17:15:25 sunblade1 MailScanner[27949]: MailScanner E-Mail Virus
> Scanner version 4.22-5 starting...
> Aug 27 17:15:26 sunblade1 MailScanner[27949]: Using locktype = flock
> Aug 27 17:15:35 sunblade1 MailScanner[27951]: MailScanner E-Mail Virus
> Scanner version 4.22-5 starting...
> Aug 27 17:15:36 sunblade1 MailScanner[27951]: Using locktype = flock
> Aug 27 17:16:39 sunblade1 postfix/smtpd[27960]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> connect from nermal.douglas.co.us[172.31.125.101]
> Aug 27 17:16:39 sunblade1 postfix/smtpd[27960]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> 0CCF5F63D: client=nermal.douglas.co.us[172.31.125.101]
> Aug 27 17:16:39 sunblade1 postfix/cleanup[27961]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> 0CCF5F63D: message-id=<200308272316.h7RNGph2007748 at nermal.douglas.co.us>
> Aug 27 17:16:39 sunblade1 postfix/qmgr[27897]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> 0CCF5F63D: from=<root at nermal.douglas.co.us>, size=3334, nrcpt=1 (queue
> active)
> Aug 27 17:16:39 sunblade1 postfix/smtpd[27960]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> disconnect from nermal.douglas.co.us[172.31.125.101]
> Aug 27 17:16:39 sunblade1 postfix/qmgr[27897]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> 0CCF5F63D: to=<jdavis at douglas.co.us>, relay=none, delay=0, status=deferred
> (deferred transport)
> Aug 27 17:16:40 sunblade1 MailScanner[27946]: Postfix queue structure is
> depth 1
> Aug 27 17:16:40 sunblade1 MailScanner[27946]: New Batch: Scanning 1
> messages, 3659 bytes
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 MailScanner[27947]: Postfix queue structure is
> depth 1
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 MailScanner[27948]: Postfix queue structure is
> depth 1
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 MailScanner[27951]: Postfix queue structure is
> depth 1
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 MailScanner[27949]: Postfix queue structure is
> depth 1
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 MailScanner[27946]: Virus and Content Scanning:
> Starting
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 MailScanner[27946]: Uninfected: Delivered 1
> messages
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 postfix/qmgr[27942]: [ID 197553 mail.info]
> 82C28F667: from=<root at nermal.douglas.co.us>, size=7095, nrcpt=2 (queue
> active)
> Aug 27 17:16:41 sunblade1 postfix/smtp[27969]: [ID 947731 mail.warning]
> warning: corrupted queue file: active/8/82C28F667
>
> Without the Mailscanner and second postfix, the inbound postfix can route
> mail as a gateway just fine (sans the defer_transports line).
>
> lindsay suggested I try the "hold" queue approach with one postfix. It may
> work just fine (haven't tested it myself yet) with postfix 1.1.13 (current
> v1 patch release). I however have noted that there is code in the
> postfix.pm
> module that seems to "only" like the deferred and defer directory
> pathnames.
> Still looking and yes my first tests were with v4.23-7.
>
> Has anyone else tried postfix 2.0.14 with the latest mailscanner?
>
> thx
>
> james (i now have mush for brains) davis
>