Mailscanner watermarks and compatibility with other systems
jan-peter at koopmann.eu
Sat May 24 10:54:53 IST 2008
>CC to that. I'm pretty certain there's nothing "ready to use", and
>that you'll need type something up yourself to use directly in your
Never heard of something. Agreed.
>I think what J-P alluded to is simply that *if* the unwillingness to
>relay through MS is due to concerns of it adversely affecting your
>"sending performance" or something similar, you can use BarricadeMX
>(that has a very "light footprint", and will be virtually transparent,
>performance-wise) to obtain the same functionality.
Same and more. But yes, that was my thought.
> Further he (as I read it at least) point to the fact that getting
> everyone to use a unified relay (or set of relays) is usually a much
> more ... intricate problem to solve, than configuring your MS cluster
> so that the handling of outgoing mail is as "light" as you want it to
> be. If you still don't want to let MS handle the load, then setting a
> BarricadeMX in front of your MS cluster _and_ set all your senders to
> relay through it for outgoing would be a very simple to do.
> In my view, it is irresponsible to not at least AV-scan outgoing mail,
> and further ... not wise at all to let M-Sexchange talk directly to
> the net, regardless if it is "only" outgoing. Just my opinion, of
>course:-). Perhaps you've solved that part of it in exchange already,
> perhaps not... impossible to tell for sure with what you've told
> Perhaps I/we would understand your reluctance to relay through your MS
> cluster more, if you told us a bit about your reasoning there...?
Could not have put it better. Glen: Can I simply drop you some keywords
in the future and have you write the thoughts down? :-) Works like a
More information about the MailScanner