scanning rules

Hugo van der Kooij hvdkooij at
Thu Nov 15 06:34:10 GMT 2007

Hash: SHA1

eclipsem at wrote:
>> Hugo van der Kooij <hvdkooij at> wrote:
>> 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)
> Then what is the point of all the starting spam checks and starting virus scanning log entries,
> thats fine here on local messages, but does not answer the main issue we have on our script generated messages where it does in fact add the headers to the email and clearly ignores the whitelists
> Are you the programmer of mailscanner? if not how about you leave this for him or her to answer
> I have until COB today, or I have been told to reinstall MIMEDefang before I go home, guess it's time to start installing it now so I can enact it at 430

I suggest you pay Jules for commercial support if it is that important
to you.

If you do not value peer advise then why bother with a mailinglist to
begin with?


- --
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