Postfix and Mailscanner sitting in a tree k-iss-ing

[avery]

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

Drew Marshall wrote:

> avery wrote:
>
> <Snipped>
>
>>
>> Good inforamation, thanks for the advise. But I am also interested in
>> the reasons why the method in which Mailscanner and Postfix work
>> together has changed in the last few months. What were the reasons in
>> changing this? At one time postfix needed to run in 2 instances one for
>> incoming and one for outgoing. This does not seem to be the case
>> anymore. It seems to be some top secret reason that no one knows about.
>
>
> Not that secret really. Postfix, being of 'modular design' relies on a
> beast known as queue runner (You will find manual entries about it and
> an entry in master.cf which controls it). Basically the queue runner
> moves messages about to the different bits of Postfix e.g. smtpd
> receives the message, the queue runner moves it to an out going queue or
> delivery agent, you get the idea. Now Wietse (Sorry if that's spelt
> wrong but it's Christmas and I can't be bothered to look it up ;-) )
> doesn't feel the need to use any form of locking on any of the queue
> files as from his perspective the only thing moving messages is Postfix
> (And probably the queue runner at that) so there is no need to lock
> files from it's self. That's fine until you introduce MailScanner who
> will pick up messages and scan them and quite possibly while the queue
> runner is trying to move them, hence making duplicate and truncated
> messages (Which is the complaint from the Postfix community). The
> solution is quite simple. Put the unscanned mail some where that the
> queue runner doesn't ever go - the hold queue. From there MS can do it's
> bit with out fear of interference and then MS moves the message from the
> hold queue back into an active queue for delivery. That is the 'secret'
> of single verses double Postfix instances.
>
> Hope that makes it clearer.
>
> Drew
>
> --
> In line with our policy, this message has
> been scanned for viruses and dangerous
> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> www.themarshalls.co.uk/policy
>
> ------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
> To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
> 'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
> Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
> the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).
>
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!

Drew,

Awesome, Awesome, Awesome, thank you. I needed that information badly
and so do others. I am making a proposal to expose this information. I
just wanted someone to specifically state the reasons why things have
changed. If more postfix users knew this they might not be so afraid of
using Mailscanner with postfix. The postfix community is still telling
people not to use Mailscanner with postfix even though it seems a
solution has been found. As of right this second the postfix experts on
the postfix mailing list are telling people that it is not safe to use
postfix and Mailscanner together. This is no longer the case as you have
just explained to me. It seems to me that this information should be
more readily available. This has been my point all along. Information my
fellow friends, its all about information. Is there someone I can make a
request to that would post this information you just presented to me on
the Mailscanner website? Mailscanner needs a wiki : )

Thanks again,
Schrock

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!