Postfix 2.5 with MailScanner?

[Hugo van der Kooij]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alex Broens wrote:
| On 3/23/2008 5:28 PM, Glenn Steen wrote:
|> On 23/03/2008, Gerard <gerard at seibercom.net> wrote:
|>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:29:02 +0000
|>>  Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
|>>
|>>  > Has anyone run Postfix 2.5 with MailScanner?
|>>  > Is it known to work okay?
|>>
|>>
|>> I suppose asking Wietse Venema is out of the question.
|>>
|>>  Actually, I did see one posting regarding it; however, it received the
|>>  standard response that Mailscanner was not supported, etc. and that
|>>  ended the thread.
|>>
|>>  I will be configuring a new FreeBSD-7.0 machine shortly that will have
|>>  Postfix-2.6 (current-beta) installed. However, that will not be for
|>>  another month or so. Sorry I could not help.
|>>
|> So you're skipping 2.5 altogether? I *might* be able tosqueeze this
|> in, but ... far from sure:-(. Would be great if someone already had
|> tried it all:-).
|
| Glenn
|
| I'm having an issue with MS/Postfix 2.5.1 and milter-link.
|
| MS won't process the msg after milter-link added its tags.
|
| A birdie told me you're the MailScanner Postfix Q file detective.
|
| wanna share my headache? :-)

Not exactly your headache. But what do the headers look like before and
after milter-link has touched them?

I assume that if you just disable milter-link that everything is OK?
(OK, I did not assume, I just asked explicitly ;-)

Hugo.

- --
hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org               http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc

	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 http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH5pn4BvzDRVjxmYERAoGaAJ0a7AQQ3uRnKsJsrkxpGZOYE7sK0ACcCnUt
I8oyIbcAfgB3CKPsMw/nMA4=
=yKKS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----