Re: MailScanner versus Amavisd-new with postfix
Jeff Chan wrote: Not to start any flamewars, but does anyone have strong opinions on MailScanner versus Amavisd-new for use with postfix (and of course SpamAssassin and ClamAV)? In the old days it seemed Amavisd-new may have integrated better with postfix, but is that no longer the case? Some folks say MailScanner is faster and leaner. What gives? Jeff C. Jeff can't say I've compared the two, but I run MailScanner and it does have a couple of neat features recently - it's own MD5 cache of recent spam which speeds things up alot, and the inbuilt phishing testing (yeah ok this has been in a while). it also glues SA, 12 anti-virus engines, and it's own tests (like executables which has saved me a few times before the av people have updates). horses for courses, but it's nice to have a choice of amavis-new OR MailScanner. -- Martin Hepworth Senior Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300 ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean. **
RE: MailScanner versus Amavisd-new with postfix
-Original Message- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:54 AM To: SpamAssassin Users Subject: MailScanner versus Amavisd-new with postfix Not to start any flamewars, but does anyone have strong opinions on MailScanner versus Amavisd-new for use with postfix (and of course SpamAssassin and ClamAV)? In the old days it seemed Amavisd-new may have integrated better with postfix, but is that no longer the case? Some folks say MailScanner is faster and leaner. What gives? Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/ Wietse Venema says that MailScanner uses unsupported methods to manipulate the queue that could (and has) lead to lost email. I don't know the full details, but it has been discussed much on the postfix list. My impression is that the condition is rare, but it does happen. Just a heads up. -DH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. SPAM-FREE 1.0(2476)
RE: MailScanner versus Amavisd-new with postfix
note: I don't use mailscanner, so am only relaying what I saw on the postfix list. My understanding (based on foggy memory - search the list archives for a better answer) is that MailScanner dipped into postfix queues using either undocumented postfix APIs or by bypassing postfix entirely and directly manipulating files on disk. This led to instances of documented mail loss. Wietse therefore said that it wasn't safe to use. I've also recently read (I believe also on the postfix list, but am not sure) that MailScanner has remedied this behavior, and that it is now safe to use with postfix, but you'll need to confirm for yourself if that is true. Kurt | -Original Message- | From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 06:54 | To: SpamAssassin Users | Subject: MailScanner versus Amavisd-new with postfix | | | Not to start any flamewars, but does anyone have strong opinions | on MailScanner versus Amavisd-new for use with postfix (and of | course SpamAssassin and ClamAV)? | | In the old days it seemed Amavisd-new may have integrated better | with postfix, but is that no longer the case? Some folks say | MailScanner is faster and leaner. | | What gives? | | Jeff C. | -- | Jeff Chan | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.surbl.org/ |
Re: MailScanner versus Amavisd-new with postfix
Jeff, Not to start any flamewars, but does anyone have strong opinions on MailScanner versus Amavisd-new for use with postfix (and of course SpamAssassin and ClamAV)? Of course I'm biased, but I'd be worried running program with about 400 cases of calling system routines (I/O, file system, etc.) without checking resulting status or failing to report errors. MailScanner works while everything is in order. When unexpected happens (e.g. disk full, I/O or file system errors, depleted system resources), then unpredictable things are bound to result, and possibly go by unnoticed for some time or prove difficult to diagnose. Mark
