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

[Neil Robst]

And you think this resolves the duplicate mail problem?

I'm unsure how it differs (apart from only having one postfix daemon
running) from using /var/spool/postfix.in/deferred and
/var/spool/postfix/incoming...?

However, as I've just had a report from my users saying that upgrading
to the 4.26-4 beta hasn't worked, I'm willing to try anything :-)


On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 10:20, Drew Marshall wrote:
> 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