scanning rules

Hugo van der Kooij hvdkooij at
Wed Nov 14 23:03:33 GMT 2007

Hash: SHA1

eclipsem at wrote:

> Nov 15 08:44:37 exorcist sendmail[3538]: lAEMiaYp003538: from=<X at>, size=443, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<4.64.0711150843470.22685 at blacksabeth>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=[] []
> Nov 15 08:44:38 exorcist MailScanner[3524]: New Batch: Scanning 1 messages, 892 bytes
> Nov 15 08:44:39 exorcist MailScanner[3524]: Spam Checks: Starting
> Nov 15 08:44:39 exorcist sendmail[3544]: lAEMiaYp003538: to=X at, ctladdr=<X at> (1009/100), delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=esmtp, pri=120443, relay=[] [], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (lAEMicrY022692 Message accepted for delivery)
> Nov 15 08:44:39 exorcist MailScanner[3524]: Unscanned: Delivered 1 messages
> Nov 15 08:44:39 exorcist MailScanner[3524]: Virus and Content Scanning: Starting

It explicitly tells you it did NOT scan. (See the Unscanned: line)

Mind you that by design MailScanner is the glue that holds two sendmail
instances together.

Wether it just forwards the message unscanned or tries every trick in
the book depends on your config. But it will clearly log the message.
Unless every message passes MailScanner there is no way that MailScanner
can decide wether or not to scan it or use AV scanner X or Y.

Now what is the problem? Does it not work as advertised? From the looks
of it is seems everything is working as you wanted it.


- --
hvdkooij at     

	A: Yes.
	>Q: Are you sure?
	>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
	>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Bored? Click on and rate those images.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the MailScanner mailing list