byebye MailScanner

C. Jon Larsen jlarsen at
Wed Apr 11 13:55:31 IST 2012

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:13 AM, C. Jon Larsen <jlarsen at> wrote:
>> performance is better (than sendmail)
> Are you talking in general here? I doubt very much that performance of
> Postfix is better than Sendmail when it comes to MailScanner due to
> the difference in mail files (Sendmails are split between queue and
> data). Since MailScanner needs to modify every single mail with at
> least inserting a header it should be slower on Postfix handling the
> whole file. Anyone tested it?

In general postfix seems to be faster than sendmail in my testing and 
experience for MTA duties.  Specific to mailscanner and the hold queue 
for postfix vs. running 2 instances for sendmail it may be a wash, but 
for outbound delivery of scanned mails it seems to work best for me. If I 
have queue backlogs it seems to handle that better than sendmail too. But 
honestly performance is a minor consideration. Config flexibility, debug 
capability, I liked better in postfix.

I ran mailscanner+sendmail for 3 yrs or so (redhat), and switched to 
amavsid +postfix for 3 yrs or so (debian), found that leaner and faster. 
Switched back to mailscanner+postfix (debian) and like that the best 
of all the setups.

My current setup is 5 clustered postfix based scanners in diverse 
datacenters. MySQL backend for config management, web admin 
tools, quarantine centralization, etc.  Each box though can run 
independently so if the link to the mysql cluster is down, or if mysql 
cluster is down, they keep on processing email.

> /peter
> -- 
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at
> Before posting, read
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!

More information about the MailScanner mailing list