Mailscanner not scanning queue

Nate nate at
Thu Dec 14 16:56:59 GMT 2006

Hash: SHA1

OK, it was not obvious to me that the Solaris/BSD version was the
generic tarball.  I'll take a look into that.

The reason we don't upgrade our 200 boxes to Unstable is because they
are servers.  They are not workstations.  We have millions of
transactions and over 2gigabit/sec of traffic coming off of them.  We
like them to be stable.  I've run debian/testing on servers before and
had problems, so there's no way I'm going near unstable on a server.  A
desktop is another matter.  99% of what we do works fine with stable.  I
know at some point we will have to make the jump to testing in
preparation for the next release of Debian (in 4 or 5 years if we're
lucky) but for right now, I have had absolutely no reason to upgrade
until MailScanner.  I have no time to deal with problems caused by
bleeding edge software, especially when you multiply the time it takes
to deal with them by over 200.

In the end I'll have to decide if I want to go with a more manual
install, upgrade to unstable for the mailscanner boxes, leave it as is,
or even go with a barracuda box or something.  So thank you all for your
opinions and help.


Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 14/12/06, Nate <nate at> wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Yes, I'm running old versions of postfix and mailscanner, but here are
>> my reasons:
>> 1. I followed the instructions at
>> which has you install
>> all of the packages from apt.  These are the version that were installed.
> Ok. While I can see that this has its merits, as you get more comfy
> with MailScanner and want it (and SpamAssassin in particular) to have
> better hit percentages, you will be wanting to move closer to "latest
> stable" of each of those... That at least is my opinionated view:-).
>> 2. I did try getting the latest version of Mailscanner since that was my
>> first inkling as well.  However, on
>> I do not see a plain tarball
>> source install.  I see installs for redhat, suse, Solaris/BSD, Debian,
>> FreeBSD.  I tried to install the Debian version but it's from unstable
>> and so it choked on dependencies.  I'm not afraid of installing the
>> latest version from a generic tarball, but I did not see that for
>> Mailscanner, which I think is odd.  Am I missing something here?  Where
>> is the source tarball?  My only other option is to try re-compiling the
>> package, which I've done before, but you really can't expect a lot of
>> users to know how to do that, and in my experience it doesn't always
>> work very well.
> The "Solaris/*BSD/Other *nix" package *is* the tarball...
> Installs into /opt in a rather self-contained manner. And it'll take
> care of perl module dependencies as best it can, provided you don't
> have an "insanely" old perl (ISTR 5.6.1 being ok, but might be
> wrong)... Worst case, you'll have to get things via cpan. Do the same
> with the clam+SA package, and you should be well on your way to
> getting the latest'n'greatest (stable) going;-). If you go that way,
> you'll have to remove the debs installed by apt for the respective
> subsystems (MailScanner, SA and Clam)... But you knew that:-).
> There are nice instructions on the official site, as well as in the
> MAQ/Wiki ...;)
> BTW, the "recompile" step is actually done at execute time ... After
> all, this is (mostly) perl;-).
>> 3. I manage over 200 debian boxes.  When you manage that many,
>> consistency is key.  Having a few boxes be in the unstable branch while
>> the rest are in stable can cause problems all over the place and make
>> your life a living hell.  I know, I've done it before.
> So move them all to unstable then... Or do you have a compelling reson
> not to do that?
> Or move over to Ubuntu... I like a lot of things about that one:-). If
> you need long support cycles and semi-old packages, Dapper should be
> your best pick. Might also please Desktop users:-D
>> So at this point I figured it would be quicker and easier to just ask on
>> the list as the author of that install page (Ugo) suggested.  As it is,
>> Razor was writing it's log file to the hold queue directory.  So I fixed
>> that and we'll see how it goes.
> Thought so. This is the _only_ real benefit of using older versions of
> things... Most bad bugs are known, and there are ususlly publicly
> available workarounds.
> Then again, in newer versions... those bugs are likely fixed (and new
> ones introduced, yes:-)..
>> Thanks, Glenn.
> Glad to be of help.
> (snip)
> Cheers
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3491 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url :

More information about the MailScanner mailing list