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

[Neil Robst]

If you want to make it automatic, couldn't you just detect whether there
is a /etc/postfix.in and /etc/postfix directories and if there are then
it's a two-daemon setup, else if there is only one of them then it's the
single-daemon config...?

Regards,
Neil

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 13:53, Julian Field wrote:
> At 13:49 20/01/2004, you wrote:
> >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?
>
> Not yet, no. I probably need to add another option to
> /etc/sysconfig/MailScanner so you can set which type of Postfix setup you
> are using. Then it could start the Postfix instances as necessary for the
> layout you are using. Default will be 2 Postfixes as that is what is used
> now, but the "1 Postfix" setup documentation would need to tell you to
> tweak /etc/sysconfig/MailScanner. Unless of course I can auto-detect what
> type of setup you are using from the Postfix configuration files. I'll make
> it automatic if possible.
>
>
> >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
>
> --
> Julian Field
> www.MailScanner.info
> MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
>
> PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654