Hold queue question

Glenn Steen glenn.steen at gmail.com
Sun Sep 10 11:07:26 IST 2006

On 10/09/06, Drew Marshall <drew at themarshalls.co.uk> wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2006, at 09:36, Glenn Steen wrote:
> > On 08/09/06, Green, Rodney <rgreen at trayerproducts.com> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'm using Postfix with MailScanner. Can someone tell me what would
> >> happen if I were to release (using postsuper -H queueid) a message in
> >> the hold queue?
> >> Would that message bypass MailScanner?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rod
> >>
> > I haven't tested this Rod, but that is very likely what would happen,
> > since you'd effectively move the message over to the deferred queue
> > (which is the domain of the qmgr... and happens after MailScanner...).
> > Why would you want to do that?
> I'm not even sure the message would stay in the hold queue with out
> MailScanner picking it up and processing it. In a MailScanner
> installation, better to do your message 'holding' with the
> MailScanner quarantine via a ruleset.
> Drew

Oh it wouldn't stay put, as long as MS is doing it's thing:).
Unless one has some other measure to put the message back onto hold,
where MS would find it (and process it again). That's pretty much why
I asked why one would want this:-).

One could of course imagine a situation where messages are piling up,
and one would want to "fast-lane" that über-important message to the
CEO/PHB/<other person who doesn't really have a grip on what email
is>, but ... there would be a certain risk that one would be "shooting
ones foot", so to speak:-).

If one does a thing like that (God forbid one would use the ALL "id"),
one would also open oneself to the same type of problem we had with
the deferred/dual postfix setup (there is _no_ locking, and "postsuper
-H ..." would be as bad as the qmgr in that type of setup). Not good.

-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se

More information about the MailScanner mailing list