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

[Neil Robst]

Julian, unless someone else suggests something different could I suggest a
change to the MailScanner init.d script so that if the POSTFIXOUTCF variable
isn't defined it doesn't attempt to start an output queue daemon?

Regards,
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew Marshall" <drew at THEMARSHALLS.CO.UK>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: 4.26- beta upgrade (was RE: Another MailScanner User!)


> I don't use RH so this is quite funny as I normally have to hack my mail
> startup scripts to start two instances and MailScanner :-).
>
> I would say that there is not a better way to start up the process.
>
> Drew
>
> Neil Robst said:
> > I've just set this up using the hold queue instead of the deferred queue
> > - just waiting for  a test to see whether it's successful or not.
> >
> > One query though - I'm using the rpm install of MailScanner on RedHat
> > Linux 9. It created a config file in /etc/sysconfig/MailScanner which
> > configured the mail server used, as you are probably aware and the
> > directories for the incoming and outgoing mail server config files. This
> > is fine for 'normal' setup when you have two daemons running, however
> > with this mechanism there is only one. Normally I just have MailScanner
> > start on boot automatically which in turn starts the postfix instances.
> >
> > However, in order to make MailScanner work with only one postfix
> > instance, I've had to hack the /etc/rc.d/init.d/MailScanner startup
> > script and comment out the StartOutSendmail routine call. Is there a
> > neater way to do this?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Neil
> >
> > On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:51, Drew Marshall wrote:
> >> As I understand Postfix doesn't use much in the way of file locking. It
> >> doesn't need to. In standard form a message is dropped into the onward
> >> directory and the next process is called using a 1b message and so mail
> >> makes it's way through the MTA. MailScanner upsets it by trying to grab
> >> the file from the deferred directory for processing. Now the deferred
> >> directory is used by Postfix as the place where mail is put when
> >> delivery
> >> fails, pending re-try (Keeps the active queues down) and every so often
> >> (As set in master.cf) the queue runner process goes to the deffered
> >> queue
> >> and inspects the messages for any that are due for retry. If the time
> >> stamp has expired it picks up the message and trys to deliver it.
> >> Through
> >> all of this there is not a need for much in the way of locking as what
> >> is
> >> going to touch that file? Postfix (As far as Postfix is concerned!) and
> >> Postfix knows what it's doing (We hope :-) ) If MailScanner and Postfix
> >> queue runner should happen to try to take the same message, you get the
> >> 'still being delivered' message in the logs and up pops a duplicated
> >> mail!
> >>
> >> Easy way round it, use the hold queue. This is designed to only have
> >> messages dropped in it for leter inspection by the postmaster and so
the
> >> queue runner doesn't ever re-inspect this directory. Ideal for
> >> MailScanner, message gets dropped (MS knows how to tell when it's
> >> complete), picks up the new message, does it's bit and puts it back in
> >> the
> >> incoming queue for Postfix to deal with in it's usual efficient manner.
> >>
> >> I haven't had a single duplicate since putting this in place.
> >>
> >> Drew
> >>
> >> Neil Robst said:
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.