v4.85.1.0 Beta for Linux RPM Available

Rick Cooper rcooper at dwford.com
Wed Feb 18 23:23:40 GMT 2015

Jerry Benton wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Rick Cooper <rcooper at dwford.com> wrote:
>> This applies to SpamAssassin as well. I sent Jules code to move
>> MailScanner to use the Spamd process years ago. Now the clamav
>> module had a lot of issues because when internal defs within the
>> clam code changed the module would puke until someone patched the
>> module but it makes no sense to me why anything MailScanner shares
>> should be based on a perl module if there is a daemon available to
>> communicate with. Spamd protocol is pretty simple and fairly easy to
>> integrate within MailScanner. The difference in speed is pretty much
>> nil but the difference in MailScanner memory usage per child is
>> significant. When I originally worked with JF to integrate the clamd
>> code his biggest hesitation was he wasn't comfortable with network
>> code... I would bet that was the biggest reason for handling postfix
>> the way it's handled as well. Whoever is currently developing MS
>> should really look at moving toward spamd support in place of the
>> perl module.  
> Rick,
> Please send me the working code you have for this. I will add it to
> the development of the next version. The same is true for Postfix
> handling if you have anything. I have spoken to Wietse Venema
> regarding MailScanner integration of Postfix and he doesn't like how
> it is currently done and posted a recommendation years ago on
> postfix.org that Postfix shouldn't be used with MailScanner. In
> short, MailScanner should be using a milter for Postfix.      
> -
> Jerry Benton
> www.mailborder.com

I will have to see what needs patch, I have not really maintained the
patches because of my wife's health issues so it's probably a few versions
back at least. I think the last patch I did was around the time that JF
moved away from the project. As far as postfix, I do not nor never will use
it. The author seems pretty full of himself without real justification. I
just remember the issues and it seemed they were all related to how postfix
handled it's mail queue and I believe the proper way discussed at that time
was it should be redelivered through some process which would have required
sockets again. You know, I think Glenn did *a lot* of the postfix code and
seems to know it very well. Dunno if he has time to take a crack or not.


More information about the MailScanner mailing list