Re: Mailscanner vs. amavis vs. other
Hi, On Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:08:35 -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote: > try. Has anyone compared amavis to mailscanner and come to a definite > conclusion as to one being better. I know better is very subjective but I'd > still like to hear opinions. Mailscanner has one big disadvantage when used with postfix: It accesses postfix queue files directly. According to Wietse Venema, the postfix author, postfix queues are considered a non-published internal interface which is subject to change. In an email to postfix-users from Sep. 16. 2003 he says: "MAILSCANNER MANIPULATES POSTFIX MAIL USING UNSUPPORTED METHODS. THEREFORE DO NOT USE MAILSCANNER." (Wietse's capitalisation, not mine). Regards, uLI
Re: Mailscanner vs. amavis vs. other
Hi, On Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:08:35 -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote: > try. Has anyone compared amavis to mailscanner and come to a definite > conclusion as to one being better. I know better is very subjective but I'd > still like to hear opinions. Mailscanner has one big disadvantage when used with postfix: It accesses postfix queue files directly. According to Wietse Venema, the postfix author, postfix queues are considered a non-published internal interface which is subject to change. In an email to postfix-users from Sep. 16. 2003 he says: "MAILSCANNER MANIPULATES POSTFIX MAIL USING UNSUPPORTED METHODS. THEREFORE DO NOT USE MAILSCANNER." (Wietse's capitalisation, not mine). Regards, uLI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailscanner vs. amavis vs. other
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 at 11:08:35 -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote: > > We've had some experience with amavis over the last few years and while it > generally works it has an a tendency to lose the occassional message or just > continually requeue messages until their queue time expires and the message > bounces. We're using amavisd-postfix. > > I know there are also other variants of amavis such as amavis-ng that we > could > try. Has anyone compared amavis to mailscanner and come to a definite > conclusion as to one being better. I know better is very subjective but I'd > still like to hear opinions. > > I'd like to eventually hook spam trapping into the filter (I think amavis-ng > does that) as well. I have never used Mailscanner so I can't compare them. I use Postfix with Amavisd-new (note "d-new") and I'm very glad. As a plus, it cooperates with antivirus scanners and with Spamassassin. -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ClamAV.net/ A GPL virus scanner
Re: Mailscanner vs. amavis vs. other
Fraser Campbell wrote: Hi, We've had some experience with amavis over the last few years and while it generally works it has an a tendency to lose the occassional message or just continually requeue messages until their queue time expires and the message bounces. We're using amavisd-postfix. I know there are also other variants of amavis such as amavis-ng that we could try. Has anyone compared amavis to mailscanner and come to a definite conclusion as to one being better. I know better is very subjective but I'd still like to hear opinions. I'd like to eventually hook spam trapping into the filter (I think amavis-ng does that) as well. Thanks! We're using amavisd-new (in an LVS cluster), with clamav. It works fairly well, integrates spamassassin, and is able to fetch per user/per domain prefs from an LDAP or SQL DB. But it's kind of a resource hog, as every process eats about 20-25 MB after running a while. But I've yet to stumble into a better solution. Thomas
Re: Mailscanner vs. amavis vs. other
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 at 11:08:35 -0500, Fraser Campbell wrote: > > We've had some experience with amavis over the last few years and while it > generally works it has an a tendency to lose the occassional message or just > continually requeue messages until their queue time expires and the message > bounces. We're using amavisd-postfix. > > I know there are also other variants of amavis such as amavis-ng that we could > try. Has anyone compared amavis to mailscanner and come to a definite > conclusion as to one being better. I know better is very subjective but I'd > still like to hear opinions. > > I'd like to eventually hook spam trapping into the filter (I think amavis-ng > does that) as well. I have never used Mailscanner so I can't compare them. I use Postfix with Amavisd-new (note "d-new") and I'm very glad. As a plus, it cooperates with antivirus scanners and with Spamassassin. -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ClamAV.net/ A GPL virus scanner -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailscanner vs. amavis vs. other
Fraser Campbell wrote: Hi, We've had some experience with amavis over the last few years and while it generally works it has an a tendency to lose the occassional message or just continually requeue messages until their queue time expires and the message bounces. We're using amavisd-postfix. I know there are also other variants of amavis such as amavis-ng that we could try. Has anyone compared amavis to mailscanner and come to a definite conclusion as to one being better. I know better is very subjective but I'd still like to hear opinions. I'd like to eventually hook spam trapping into the filter (I think amavis-ng does that) as well. Thanks! We're using amavisd-new (in an LVS cluster), with clamav. It works fairly well, integrates spamassassin, and is able to fetch per user/per domain prefs from an LDAP or SQL DB. But it's kind of a resource hog, as every process eats about 20-25 MB after running a while. But I've yet to stumble into a better solution. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
