Question on reducing load on MailScanner machine

[Christopher Fisk]

>  Each child scans the queue and attempts to lock each
>  message it finds;
>  if the lock fails, then it moves on until it has either
>  built up a batch
>  to scan or run out of files.

>  Jules can correct me if I'm wrong - it's been a while
>  since I read the code.


So essentially, what you're saying here indicates to me that it would work over nfs if each child is already playing nice with the other children with locks.  So long as the method I use to mount the hold queue on the remote machine supports the locking that is needed.


>  This of course is also ignoring other issues that might
>  creep in; such
>  as you'll need to make sure that everything between the
>  machines is
>  identical (e.g. Postfix versions, MailScanner) etc.

Identical MailScanners would be taken care of easilly.  Postfix wouldn't be running on the second server at all, just MailScanner, SpamAssassin & ClamAV.


Christopher Fisk

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