New wiki page

Julian Field MailScanner at
Wed Jul 1 09:08:01 IST 2009

On 29/06/2009 20:32, Remco Barendse wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Julian Field wrote:
>>>  Julian,
>>>      Just wondering why you don't recommend MCP? I'm using it 
>>> currently and
>>>      wondering if I should disable it now.
>> It has a huge processing overhead and as a result is very slow.
>> "SpamAssassin Rule Actions" can do pretty much anything MCP can, and 
>> it does it enormously faster.
> But what if you use MCP on outgoing mail only, meaning mail that is 
> not run through spamassassin
You can minimise the overhead with a ruleset on the whole MCP process, 
but I would still try your best to implement what you need using 
SpamAssassin Rule Actions. If I had thought of the whole SpamAssassin 
Rule Actions at the time, I would never have implemented MCP at all. 
It's now there, so there's nothing to be gained by removing it, and it 
would really piss off the sites that still use it, so I'm not going to 
do that.


Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
Buy the MailScanner book at

Need help customising MailScanner?
Contact me!
Need help fixing or optimising your systems?
Contact me!
Need help getting you started solving new requirements from your boss?
Contact me!

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
Follow me at and

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list