Menu
▾
▴
webadmin-list
|
From: <da...@so...> - 2005-09-25 23:22:20
|
I was wondering what the word on the street is on the MailScanner software. I note there's a webmin module written for it. Just wondering about functionality, scalibility, and upgrading. Thanks, |
|
From: Daniel P. <da...@ri...> - 2005-09-26 00:54:19
|
da...@so... writes:
> I was wondering what the word on the street is on the MailScanner
> software. I note there's a webmin module written for it. Just
> wondering about functionality, scalibility, and upgrading.
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.
It does basically work, but I really don't feel comfortable depending on
a package that uses as undocumented and unsafe interface to process my
email.
I would recommend, rather, the 'amavisd-new' package, which does a much
finer job of using standard, documented interfaces to pass email around.
Regards,
Daniel
|
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-26 01:12:57
|
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 10:54 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote: > da...@so... writes: > > > I was wondering what the word on the street is on the MailScanner > > software. I note there's a webmin module written for it. Just > > wondering about functionality, scalibility, and upgrading. > > 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. > > It does basically work, but I really don't feel comfortable depending on > a package that uses as undocumented and unsafe interface to process my > email. > > > I would recommend, rather, the 'amavisd-new' package, which does a much > finer job of using standard, documented interfaces to pass email around. ---- fwiw, I use mailscanner with both sendmail and postfix mta's and have had no problems with it whatsoever. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Daniel P. <da...@ri...> - 2005-09-26 01:46:56
|
Craig White <cra...@az...> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 10:54 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> da...@so... writes:
>>
>> > I was wondering what the word on the street is on the MailScanner
>> > software. I note there's a webmin module written for it. Just
>> > wondering about functionality, scalibility, and upgrading.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> It does basically work, but I really don't feel comfortable depending on
>> a package that uses as undocumented and unsafe interface to process my
>> email.
>>
>>
>> I would recommend, rather, the 'amavisd-new' package, which does a much
>> finer job of using standard, documented interfaces to pass email around.
>
> fwiw, I use mailscanner with both sendmail and postfix mta's and have
> had no problems with it whatsoever. Different strokes for different
> folks I guess.
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.
The author of Postfix, at least, has explicitly stated that this sort of
fiddling with the internal queues is not supported, as well. I believe
that it currently works by accident, rather than design, as it doesn't
update all the related internal information.
So, it isn't that MailScanner will fail to work today that bothers me.
It works, and does a decent job.
What bothers me is that it *will* break at some unknown point in the
future. When it does, it may not just stop working, it may well corrupt
every bit of email that passes through it.
/That/ is what I worry about. I don't want to have to find out if there
have been any changes to the mail queue handling in Postfix or whatever
before I apply a security patch.
I want things to just work. Pretty much every other mail scanner out
there uses documented, public protocols and interfaces, so I can trust
'em to keep working right when things change.
MailScanner doesn't. Now, sure, you may not care about that, and if you
don't, go ahead and use MailScanner. It will work, for now. :)
Daniel
|
|
From: Vernon J. S. <ve...@ve...> - 2005-09-26 02:07:26
|
Clam AV is a really good mail scanner and there is a lot of docs on them. ------------------------------------------ Vernon J. Spangler http://www.vernonspangler.org/ (520) 990-1863 Cell ve...@ve... ------------------------------------------ Powered by Windows XP Professional Sent by Microsoft Outlook 2003 -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Pittman [mailto:da...@ri...] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 6:47 PM To: Craig White Cc: web...@li... Subject: Re: [webmin-l] virus scanner Craig White <cra...@az...> writes: > On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 10:54 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote: >> da...@so... writes: >> >> > I was wondering what the word on the street is on the MailScanner >> > software. I note there's a webmin module written for it. Just >> > wondering about functionality, scalibility, and upgrading. >> >> 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. >> >> It does basically work, but I really don't feel comfortable depending on >> a package that uses as undocumented and unsafe interface to process my >> email. >> >> >> I would recommend, rather, the 'amavisd-new' package, which does a much >> finer job of using standard, documented interfaces to pass email around. > > fwiw, I use mailscanner with both sendmail and postfix mta's and have > had no problems with it whatsoever. Different strokes for different > folks I guess. 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. The author of Postfix, at least, has explicitly stated that this sort of fiddling with the internal queues is not supported, as well. I believe that it currently works by accident, rather than design, as it doesn't update all the related internal information. So, it isn't that MailScanner will fail to work today that bothers me. It works, and does a decent job. What bothers me is that it *will* break at some unknown point in the future. When it does, it may not just stop working, it may well corrupt every bit of email that passes through it. /That/ is what I worry about. I don't want to have to find out if there have been any changes to the mail queue handling in Postfix or whatever before I apply a security patch. I want things to just work. Pretty much every other mail scanner out there uses documented, public protocols and interfaces, so I can trust 'em to keep working right when things change. MailScanner doesn't. Now, sure, you may not care about that, and if you don't, go ahead and use MailScanner. It will work, for now. :) Daniel ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php - Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li... To remove yourself from this list, go to http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-26 02:25:23
|
On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 19:07 -0700, Vernon J. Spangler wrote: > Clam AV is a really good mail scanner and there is a lot of docs on them. ---- MailScanner, like mime-defang and amavisd is a wrapper for implementing various anti-virus, phishing, spam scanning stuff all in one - highly recommended. Clam-av and many other virus scanners are supported. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-26 02:23:43
|
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: > >> > >> > I was wondering what the word on the street is on the MailScanner > >> > software. I note there's a webmin module written for it. Just > >> > wondering about functionality, scalibility, and upgrading. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> It does basically work, but I really don't feel comfortable depending on > >> a package that uses as undocumented and unsafe interface to process my > >> email. > >> > >> > >> I would recommend, rather, the 'amavisd-new' package, which does a much > >> finer job of using standard, documented interfaces to pass email around. > > > > fwiw, I use mailscanner with both sendmail and postfix mta's and have > > had no problems with it whatsoever. Different strokes for different > > folks I guess. > > 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. > > The author of Postfix, at least, has explicitly stated that this sort of > fiddling with the internal queues is not supported, as well. I believe > that it currently works by accident, rather than design, as it doesn't > update all the related internal information. > > > So, it isn't that MailScanner will fail to work today that bothers me. > It works, and does a decent job. > > What bothers me is that it *will* break at some unknown point in the > future. When it does, it may not just stop working, it may well corrupt > every bit of email that passes through it. > > > /That/ is what I worry about. I don't want to have to find out if there > have been any changes to the mail queue handling in Postfix or whatever > before I apply a security patch. > > I want things to just work. Pretty much every other mail scanner out > there uses documented, public protocols and interfaces, so I can trust > 'em to keep working right when things change. > > MailScanner doesn't. Now, sure, you may not care about that, and if you > don't, go ahead and use MailScanner. It will work, for now. :) ---- 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. 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) and I see little reason for this topic on this list. There is a MailScanner module for Webmin, there isn't a amavis module for Webmin. I happily use MailScanner with many Postfix installations and could never get amavis working with similar efforts. I love MailScanner, it works, it's effective and seemingly has everything that Mime-Defang has plus. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Daniel P. <da...@ri...> - 2005-09-26 02:29:37
|
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
|
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-26 08:27:02
|
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 12:29 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote: > 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? > ---- it all comes off as sort of FUD - but as I said, I am under informed and cannot intelligently debate this but invited commentary from the MailScanner list... http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin? A2=ind0509&L=MAILSCANNER&P=R51276&D=0&H=0&I=-3&O=T&T=0 and http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php? id=documentation:configuration:mta:postfix:politics What I do know is that MailScanner is brilliant, effective, easy enough to set up, maintain and has worked with all of the various versions of Postfix (2.1.x & 2.2.x) & Sendmail that I have paired it with and I have absolutely no fear of anything breaking from updates (as if updates don't occasionally break things anyway). I fail to understand what point you are actually trying to make - that all of your solid research means that I shouldn't be doing what I am doing because of what may occur in the future? From what I see on MailScanner list, spamassassin list, CentOS list, nahant & taroon lists, that a lot of people aren't necessarily troubled by the things you see in your solid research and using it anyway - with Postfix. Again, I read through this 'politics' thing a long time ago, asked on some lists and found out that lots of people chose to ignore the FUD and found it to be very effective as have I. Again, I fail to see the need to debate this here on webmin list - at least there is a MailScanner module, but no amavis module. I found amavis unnecessarily difficult to set up and use, I found MailScanner easy enough to set up and use. I have had no problems using MailScanner to add headers to mail to filter mail out through sieve and procmail. To summarize my findings - admittedly, no solid research much beyond the references above AND my own experiences...that MailScanner is efficient, effective and easy enough to set up (3 big e's). My point - to be as succinct as I can be is that your statements - that MailScanner isn't appropriate to use with Postfix because of unanticipated changes to Postfix might break a working configuration is nothing but spreading unnecessary FUD. Craig ps: forgive the html format of this email, I did it to hold the longer URL's together. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...> - 2005-09-29 06:12:03
|
Craig White wrote: > My point - to be as succinct as I can be is that your statements - > that MailScanner isn't appropriate to use with Postfix because of > unanticipated changes to Postfix might break a working configuration > is nothing but spreading unnecessary FUD. And ours -- to be as succinct as can be -- is that if Postfix's author says not to use MailScanner with Postfix, one would be silly to use it. |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-29 17:15:24
|
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 23:12 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > My point - to be as succinct as I can be is that your statements - > > that MailScanner isn't appropriate to use with Postfix because of > > unanticipated changes to Postfix might break a working configuration > > is nothing but spreading unnecessary FUD. > > > And ours -- to be as succinct as can be -- is that if Postfix's author > says not to use MailScanner with Postfix, one would be silly to use it. ---- Has Wietse actually made that statement? This is what is on Postfix.org's website mailscanner system, works with Postfix and other MTAs. This uses unsupported methods to manipulate Postfix queue files, and there are multiple reports of message duplication and/or delivery of truncated messages. That isn't the same thing. I haven't had an issue with multiple duplication or truncated messages. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Daniel P. <da...@ri...> - 2005-09-26 09:20:52
|
Craig White <cra...@az...> writes: > On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 12:29 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote: > 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: [...] > >> 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. [...] > it all comes off as sort of FUD - but as I said, I am under informed > and cannot intelligently debate this but invited commentary from the > MailScanner list... > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0509&L=MAILSCANNER&P=R51276&D=0&H=0&I=-3&O=T&T=0 > > http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=documentation:configuration:mta:postfix:politics I note that the wiki page you reference states exactly what I do: Mailscanner depends explicitly on an interface to the MTA that is not publicly supported. The mailing list also echos my statements: if the queue format changes, MailScanner needs to be changed to adapt to that. I even agree with the authors: another change is reasonably unlikely. > What I do know is that MailScanner is brilliant, effective, easy enough to > set up, maintain and has worked with all of the various versions of Postfix > (2.1.x & 2.2.x) & Sendmail that I have paired it with I have no disagreement with these statements. > and I have absolutely no fear of anything breaking from updates (as if > updates don't occasionally break things anyway). This, however, is where I see our approach differ: the last time I had anything break on a server I support, due to an upgrade, was December, 1999. > I fail to understand what point you are actually trying to make - that > all of your solid research means that I shouldn't be doing what I am > doing because of what may occur in the future? No: the point I am trying to make is that I, personally, consider the design of MailScanner to be a poor design, and that I, personally, would not recommend it to anyone due to that design. I also tried to make clear exactly what those technical problems were, why they were problems, and provide an recommendation for an alternative package that provides the same functionality without the same design flaws. I don't particularly care if you continue to use MailScanner or not, or whatever. That isn't of interest to me. > From what I see on MailScanner list, spamassassin list, CentOS list, > nahant & taroon lists, that a lot of people aren't necessarily > troubled by the things you see in your solid research and using it > anyway - with Postfix. Which is, again, their prerogative. You, and they, are welcome to form your own opinions. [...] > My point - to be as succinct as I can be is that your statements - > that MailScanner isn't appropriate to use with Postfix because of > unanticipated changes to Postfix might break a working configuration > is nothing but spreading unnecessary FUD. I am a bit sad that this conversation seems to have ended up in name calling. I made my opinion known to a poster who asked for it. They, perhaps, asked on a somewhat inappropriate forum, but I figured a brief message wouldn't hurt anyone. I did my best to provide sound technical arguments in support of my views, and to assist the original poster. I don't believe that this was "spreading unnecessary FUD", and I would rather you had stayed on firm technical ground in your arguments than drifting into these personal attacks to shore up your arguments. In any case, I don't believe that anyone will benefit from further discussion, from us, on this topic. Regards, Daniel |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-26 16:07:03
|
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 19:20 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote: > > My point - to be as succinct as I can be is that your statements - > > that MailScanner isn't appropriate to use with Postfix because of > > unanticipated changes to Postfix might break a working configuration > > is nothing but spreading unnecessary FUD. > > I am a bit sad that this conversation seems to have ended up in name > calling. ---- Please tell me where your solid research suggests that I have done any name calling. ---- > > I made my opinion known to a poster who asked for it. They, perhaps, > asked on a somewhat inappropriate forum, but I figured a brief message > wouldn't hurt anyone. > > I did my best to provide sound technical arguments in support of my > views, and to assist the original poster. > > I don't believe that this was "spreading unnecessary FUD", and I would > rather you had stayed on firm technical ground in your arguments than > drifting into these personal attacks to shore up your arguments. ---- What personal attack(s)? Let me simply point out that the author is reporting an average of 30,000 downloads of MailScanner a month. http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin? A2=ind0508&L=MAILSCANNER&P=R49950&I=-3 Evidently, there are a lot of people that don't subscribe to your solid research. ---- > > In any case, I don't believe that anyone will benefit from further > discussion, from us, on this topic. > ---- perhaps not - I'm not sure that anyone has derived any benefit from the discussion thus far but that seems to be the way things work when someone is spreading FUD. FWIW, the author of MailScanner has sounded off on this topic... http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin? A2=ind0509&L=MAILSCANNER&D=0&H=0&I=-3&O=T&T=0&P=63028 perhaps you want to debate with him since I am just a lowly sysadmin who depends upon others and he reminds me of Jamie, doing perl magic, updating his program constantly, responsive to others needs. MailScanner already fully supports spamassassin 3.1 - (offered as testimony to the responsiveness of the author). Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
|
From: Craig W. <cra...@az...> - 2005-09-29 21:04:54
|
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 13:12 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 23:12 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: > > > >> Craig White wrote: > >> > >>> My point - to be as succinct as I can be is that your statements - > >>> that MailScanner isn't appropriate to use with Postfix because of > >>> unanticipated changes to Postfix might break a working configuration > >>> is nothing but spreading unnecessary FUD. > >>> > >> And ours -- to be as succinct as can be -- is that if Postfix's author > >> says not to use MailScanner with Postfix, one would be silly to use it. > >> > > ---- > > Has Wietse actually made that statement? > > > > > > > He's said this: > ---- ok - thanks I've been using mailscanner for years and haven't had a problem though, probably only about 10 months or so in conjunction with Postfix. I'll keep my eye out but I have to say, I never could get amavisd or amavisd- new running but mailscanner was a breeze and very effective. Thanks Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. |
