MailScanner Deficiency: Multi-Ruleset Processing per Email Recipient

Alex Neuman alex at
Fri Jul 11 13:37:36 IST 2014

This has been discussed many times before. You need to split recipients at
the MTA level in order to accomplish this, unless you can contribute the
resources to modify the code. You could use less than 3.5x the hardware by
using a gateway machine to do the splitting for you. I don't know what your
mail volume is, but I'm guessing just for splitting and relaying you could
get by with using SSD's for the relay machine and for the MailScanner
incoming and processing queue folders - with the end result probably being
faster than what you have now, at least from experience.

*Alex Neuman van der Hans*Reliant Technologies / Vida Digital

Mobile: +507-6781-9505
Work: +507-832-6725
Work (USA): +1-440-253-9789
Skype: AlexNeuman

Don't miss Vida Digital on LiveStream
Saturdays 8am-10am on 104.3FM Panama

Follow *@AlexNeuman <>* on Twitter
Like Vida Digital <> on Facebook
Follow VidaDigital <> on Instagram
Subscribe to Vida Digital <> on Youtube

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Sam Gelbart <samg at> wrote:

> Hi All,
> We at SYNAQ use and have used Mailscanner for many years. As an Email
> Hygiene provider MailScanner has served us very well.
> However, as we have grown (very rapidly in the past 6 months, to many more
> customer domains) we have noticed some deficiencies in MailScanner.
> Below is a brief description covering our problem areas:
> Overview
> The issue has arisen due to SYNAQ's ever growing client base and the fact
> that we're provisioning more and more customers (and email domains) on our
> hygiene platform, and that more than one of these customer
> recipients/domains (and their applicable rulesets) are being addressed in
> the same email.
> Problem 1
> 1) and are both provisioned on our platform.
> 2) has quarantining of SPAM configured, while does
> not.
> 3) Mailscanner accepts the message for processing but "chooses"
> user at and as the Message's "to_address" and
> "to_domain".
> 4) MailScanner determines that the message is SPAM and because it has
> "chosen" as the email domain it deletes the message as the
> configured spam action for @abc.coz.a is to delete.
> 5) However the rule for is to store/quarantine spam. This does
> not happen because of the actions above and data is also never logged via
> MailWatch.
> 6) The example above is a based on very simple scenario, and as you are
> aware this applies to many more complex rulesets (size, File Type etc)
> across the system.
> Problem 2
> 1) and are both provisioned on our platform.
> 2) A third party emails both user at and user at in a
> single email message.
> 3) Mailscanner accepts the message for processing but "chooses"
> user at and as the Message's "to_address" and
> "to_domain".
> 4) When the message is processed, the script receives a
> message object for SQL logging with data only for user at and
>; is never logged.
> Finally we have considered splitting incoming messages by recipient at an
> MTA level to address this problem, but our calculations show that it would
> require 3.5x more hardware to process this increased mail load. So for us a
> MailsScanner solution is ideal.
> Based on the above, could you tell me if there is anything that can be
> done from a MailScanner community point of view to help develop MailScanner
> functionality to address these issues?
> We'd be very happy to give a nice donation for a fix or patch.
> Also if the community has any ideas on other ways we can remedy this
> problem we welcome your feedback.
> Thanks and regards,
> Sam Gelbart
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at
> Before posting, read
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the MailScanner mailing list