<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I vaguely recall some discussion about that from probably 10 or more years ago. IIRC, Jules’ steered away from that sort of approach, as it was called for
each message. He specifically designed MailScanner to work on batches for more efficiency. I have no idea where the bell curve falls between the two. With a low level volume it probably doesn’t make much difference but with a very large number of messages
coming in there’s probably some efficiencies to be gained. But with today’s hardware and memory available, it may be a wash.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I run MailScanner and Postfix and have never had a problem (that I know of). I also reject a lot of mail at MTA time via greylisting, RBLs, SPF, and lack of
full circle reverse DNS. That means, of course, that if one of my users asked if mail was mis-identified as spam that I have to first check MailScanner (via the Mailwtch interface) and if I don’t see it there, jump onto the CLI and grep mail.log for filtered
mail. No biggie, but one stop shopping would be a welcome addition…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">...Kevin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Kevin Miller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">155 South Seward Street<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Juneau, Alaska 99801<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4588 Registered Linux User No: 307357<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> MailScanner [mailto:mailscanner-bounces+kevin.miller=juneau.org@lists.mailscanner.info]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Shawn Iverson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> MailScanner Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: postfix and mailscanner<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For anyone curious, I am researching creating a mailscanner milter for postfix. I have gotten as far to conclude it is possible and that it might bring additional functionality when using postfix and mailscanner together. For example,
it would be possible to reject a message for various reasons and still have detailed reports on the messages. It would also be possible to have more granular whitelisting capabilities (virus scan only, spam scan only, no scan, etc.). It is a ways off, but
I've been looking at milter code on various things for a while.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>