4.26- beta upgrade (was RE: Another MailScanner User!)

[Drew Marshall]

Neil

What I have done is below, as suggested by Peter Bates and forwarded to me
from this list.

> I'm using MS with Postfix in a slightly 'non-standard' way, but which is
working fine for 13-15K messages we deal with (actually it might be
more, I never bothered counting our outgoing email!)...
> I'm using a 'header_check' like so:
> In main.cf -
> header_checks = pcre:/etc/postfix/header_checks
> In header_checks -
> /^Received:.*by .*\.your.domain.tld \(Postfix\)/ HOLD
> This puts the incoming mail in the 'hold' queue, and then
> I have in MailScanner.conf -
> Incoming Queue Dir = /var/spool/postfix/hold
> Outgoing Queue Dir = /var/spool/postfix/incoming

With this, you will need to stop postfix.in and uncomment the smtp line in
master.cf (Basically revert your set up to a non-MailScanner set up (It
may be easier if Postfix.in runs chrooted and postfix doesn't to just
alter postfix.in to become just postfix, what ever your mileage!)). Stop
all instances and restart just postfix and you now have one postfix
instance with MailScanner.

Works great!

Drew
--


Neil Robst said:
> Drew,
>
> Can you explain a bit more about how you've configured postfix, please?
I'm using the suggested setup of two postfix instances - the first runs
everything in a chroot jail and smtp, local and virtual and deferred.
Mailscanner then picks everything out the deferred queue, does it's
stuff and drops it back into the incoming queue of the second postfix
instance. Seems to be working well, but you said you'd changed postfix
to bypass the duplicate problems...
>
> Regards,
> Neil
>
> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 09:06, Drew Marshall wrote:
>> I've been running it now since the weekend without problem. I would
suggest that although marked as a beta and potentialy unstable, it's
about
>> as unstable as the production releases :-) The new patches seem to be
working well.
>> I have to admit, I changed my Postfix set up to by pass the duplicate
problems and haven't changed it back. I now use a rule in Postfix to
hold
>> all incoming mail, let MS collect from the hold queue (The queue runner
doesn't ever run in there) and drop back into the incoming queue for
delivery. It just means that I only have to ever run just one Postfix
instance. I only ever use SMTP connection so don't have to worry about
direct queue injection by passing MailScanner.
>> Drew
>> Neil Robst said:
>> > Yes... fingers crossed!
>> >
>> > Any other issues known with the 4.26-4 beta currently? What's the
general feeling in the community of it's stability, etc?
>> >
>> > On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 22:07, Drew Marshall wrote:
>> >> Just for my 2p, my server doesn't have a high load but I suffered
duplicate mail. My old set up on Slackware didn't suffer, the new on
Gentoo did :-(  . I'm not quite sure why but it seemed that the
>> Postfix
>> >> queue runner and MailScanner got in each others way with the result
>> that
>> >> MS picked up incomplete messages.
>> >>
>> >> <fingers crossed> Any way that's all in the past now </fingers
>> crossed>
>> >>
>> >> Drew
>> >>
>> >> Neil Robst wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> >Just applied the 4.26-4 beta of MailScanner to my mail server,
>> though
>> >> I've
>> >> >been unable to replicate the problem with the duplicate mails
either
>> >> before
>> >> >or after (as expected) the upgrade. Do you know any details about
that -whether it only manifested itself when there were lots of
>> >> recepients
>> >> >on the message or a high load on the server or what?
>> >> >
>> >> >Regards,
>> >> >Neil
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> >> >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> >> >believed to be clean.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>> >
>> --
>> 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
>




--
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