Additional recipients within same lose mail when quarantined/released...

[am.lists]

On 3/15/07, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/03/07, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/03/07, am.lists <am.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/15/07, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 15/03/07, am.lists <am.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sorry for the ramble of a subject line, but what I'm seeing is
> > > > > essentially lost mail to additional recipients.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scenario: (Config: Postfix, Mailscanner, Mailwatch.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob sends John and Mary an email. It gets tagged as spam. Both are at
> > > > > somedomain.net. As John's listed as the first to address in the
> > > > > envelope, he gets the message in his quarantine. He releases it. Mary
> > > > > knows nothing of the email. No quarantine file for her (in MailWatch),
> > > > > and when John releases it, it only goes to John.
> > > > >
> > > > > Variation:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob sends to Tom and John. John is at somedomain.net but Tom is at
> > > > > anotherdomain.us. Both are handled by my mailscanner. Same exact
> > > > > behavior as above.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been googling this and the solutions I've found have been really
> > > > > ancient (2003 vintage), and as such, several versions of released code
> > > > > old.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm wondering if there's some new way of fixing this issue? I don't
> > > > > particularly want to rig up a second instance of postfix on some odd
> > > > > port just to fix this... unless I have to. 8-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Angelo
> > > > Not yet, there isn't... Unless you patch MailWatch to handle this
> > > > (ISTR there being some patches for this floating around).
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I've made a right mess of my kit by trying Joost's referred
> > > article. There's at least one or two material typos in it, and it's a
> > > dickens to troubleshoot. I'm meddling a bit more with it before
> > > reverting back.
> > >
> > > Angelo
> > Being the author of that article, I'd like to be alerted to what typos
> > you find... Might help the next guy/gal:-).
>
> Right, found one I thought I'd fixed (postfix.in/transport and
> postfix/transport.in mixup). Fixed that one good this time. Please
> reload your pages:-).
>
> Was there anything else (apart from a nonsensical "compare this OR
> this" example near the end:)?
>

Well, for one, the /etc/postfix/transport.in =>
/etc/postfix.in/transport was one problem.

Also, let's consider why I'm after this article:  the original post:
about releasing properly to multiple recipients from within MailWatch.
It was confusing to me that if I went out and grabbed mini_sendmail
that I wouldn't need the postfix instance on port 10027. But it seems
that the mini_sendmail is just a remailer, telling it to connect to
localhost:10027... which implies that the 10027 instance /does/ need
to be there.

And... I'm not sure if it was needed or not, but I created
/etc/init.d/postfix.in - copied from /etc/init.d/postfix, adding -c
/etc/postfix.in as the config files to use. It wasn't clear if this
was needed or not.

I run as a gateway, and as such, rely on whitelisting 127.0.0.1 for
releasing. The doc says to remove whitelisting of 127.0.0.1. But then
what? I understand that it needs to be removed to pass the mail from
one spool to the other, but how do I then resend it back out without
the double (or looping) scanning?

As of now, I've executed a rollback. But I'm missing something I
think. If you have any ideas on what I've not done correctly, I'd love
to hear.

Backout:

Restored /etc/postfix-bak to /etc/postfix  (I copied it to -bak before
I started mucking)
Restored /var/www/html/mailscanner-bak to /var/www/html/mailscanner
Removed /etc/init.d/postfix.in

To be sure, I init-6'ed. Now, after the reboot, no mail is coming
through, everything appears to be going into the
/var/spool/postfix.in/hold directory. (I know this based on the reboot
being at 15:09 and files in /var/spool/postfix.in/hold having a 15:18
timestamp.

Any idea what I've missed???

Thanks,
Angelo