Sloppy error checking in MS code
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Sun Dec 17 16:00:12 GMT 2006
On 17/12/06, Pete Russell <pete at enitech.com.au> wrote:
> Res wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Richard Lynch wrote:
> >> I doubt anything would quiet them. Axiom: If one is looking for fault
> >> one will find it. Corollary: You will find whatever you are looking for.
> >> It's not necessary to check every possible failure just the important
> >> ones or the ones you want to handle. The question becomes "Does MS
> >> check enough of them?". I don't know the code so I can't say. I can,
> >> however, say this.
> >> 1) MS protects over 1 billion messages a day (from the web page).
> >> 2) We use it to process approx 2 million messages a day.
> >> 3) We have had little to no problems with MS.
> >> For us the answer to the question is, yes, MS checks enough of them,
> Its funny, seem that only the users on the postfix list experience
> problems, or theorise about them. I have been using postfix and MS for
> 4+ years and i have never experienced any problems, except that postfix
> cant split the multi recipient inbound message into individual queue
> files. But that's a postfix problem...
... Easily... is what you meant to say, I hope:-)
As to the rest... Pointing people to the correct forum would be one
thing (like we do when people ask about DefenderMX or OpenProtect).
It's the vehement allegations of non-functionality that baffles me.
Like you, I've been using this combination for quite a while, with no
ill effects whatsoever.
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner