Re: [webmin-l] virus scanner

[Daniel P. <da...@ri...>]

Craig White <cra...@az...> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 11:46 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> Craig White <cra...@az...> writes:
>> > On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 10:54 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> >> da...@so... writes:

[...]

>> >> The scanning, etc, side of MailScanner works very well -- as well as
>> >> anything else out there, basically.
>> >> 
>> >> Personally, I wouldn't deploy it even if someone paid me, though.
>> >> 
>> >> MailScanner depends, by design, on poking around in the innards of the
>> >> mail queues of the mailers it uses.  This is ... an interesting
>> >> approach, since none of the major mailers actually document the queues,
>> >> or expect random software to poke at them.

[...]

>> Oh, I don't question that MailScanner *works*.  I just question the
>> wisdom of using a product that explicitly depends on undocumented,
>> internal features of other product to function correctly.
>> 
>> When Postfix or Sendmail decide to change their internal queue format,
>> which has happened before and will doubtless happen again, MailScanner
>> will no longer function correctly.

[...]

> my understanding is that Postfix has actually implemented a permanent
> feature to hold and interrupt mail queue for this to operate and that is
> what MailScanner does. 

Absolutely.  The ability to hold mail is a standard feature of Postfix.

It even has a good, solid interface.  You can hold mail based on any
number of standard table lookups, or using administrative tools run from
the postsuper shell command.


MailScanner, on the other hand, moves files between queue directories.  
That /isn't/ a public interface: that is fiddling with the internals of
the mailer, and hoping that what worked yesterday will work tomorrow.

> I am not first hand involved in this at all and couldn't make a
> knowledgeable argument but state with great confidence that it isn't
> going to break.
>
> This however has nothing to do with OP question, webmin or anything and
> is opinion of under informed people (certainly on my part) 

The original poster asked, explicitly, "what is the word on the street
about MailScanner."  Given that, I answered with my views on the
package.


As to your statements about "under informed people": I don't appreciate
your implicit comment that I am making statements from a basis of
ignorance.

I also feel that if you have /not/ bothered to research this enough to
refute my claims, which are based on solid research, then perhaps you
shouldn't have made comment?

Regards,
        Daniel