Invalid postfix queue files (UNCLASSIFIED)

Glenn Steen glenn.steen at
Tue Jun 12 19:18:32 IST 2007

On 12/06/07, Gerard <gerard at> wrote:
> On June 12, 2007 at 12:13PM Glenn Steen wrote:
> {snip]
> > I'll be looking hard at this, time permitting, over the next few days.
> > Ie also gotten a good report (very detailed) from Nerijus Baliunas
> > along the same lines, but... I can't really see how any MailScanner
> > code could be responsible for damaging anything in hold (might be me
> > needing new glasses:-) simply due to the fact that we only _read_ from
> > hold (well, eventually we unlink that message, after successful
> > requeue, of course).
> >
> > But I will make an effort to ascertain whether this really is due to
> > the code added to 4.60.8 or not. Who knows, perhaps I'm doing
> > something stupid when droping the message from the batch (rightly)...
> > But I rather doubt it:-)
> >
> > You can help further by giving more complete log snippets/examples
> > (from connect until it pops up as invalid).
> I thought I saw some chatter regarding this on the Postfix forum a
> short time ago. In any case, I think it can be safely stated that Wietse
> will not be rushing to your door offering assistance.
That is todays understatement, methinks:-)

And as it turns out, he likely shouldn't either.
Nerijus helped me pinpoint that this only happens with messages
lacking a body, so ... I need to fix that:). Unless Jules sees this
and beats me to it, I should have something by sometime tomorrow...
Stay tuned....:-)

I've also been thinking of "reintroducing" pristine p records (0
variant) wherever I munge them, simply to preserve them for any
locally resubmitted queue files (on systems using that type of
milter)... Just to be sure...:-). Perhaps not the most needed thing,
so ... we'll see.

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

More information about the MailScanner mailing list