Ray Parish wrote:
So in the mc file I put
define(`confSUPERSAFE', `PostMilter')dnl
Instead of that, add to sendmail.mc:
define(`confSAFE_QUEUE',`PostMilter')dnl
which should translate to this in sendmail.cf:
O SuperSafe=PostMilter
-- Ron
--
Ron Pool
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:48:38AM -0500, Ray Parish wrote:
> So in the mc file I put
>
> define(`confSUPERSAFE', `PostMilter')dnl
>
> However when I create the cf file, this gets translated to SuperSafe=True
The right spelling is:
define(`confSAFE_QUEUE', `PostMilter')
See the README file in
Ray Parish wrote:
> So in the mc file I put
> define(`confSUPERSAFE', `PostMilter')dnl
That's what you'd think. However, the mavens who make Sendmail demand:
define(`confSAFE_QUEUE', `PostMilter')dnl
Go figure.
Regards,
David.
___
NOTE: If there is
D]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David F.
Skoll
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:10 AM
To: mimedefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
Subject: SuperSafe=PostMilter (was Re: [Mimedefang] compare mimedefang to
mailscanner)
Josh Kelley wrote:
> Sorry for going OT, but this is the first I&#
Josh Kelley wrote:
> Sorry for going OT, but this is the first I'd heard of the PostMilter
> option. Is there any reason not to enable that with MIMEDefang?
Nope. You should always set SuperSafe=PostMilter if you're using
a milter.
Regards,
David.
_
On 1/16/07, David F. Skoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Disk I/O: MIMEDefang will use less disk I/O than Mailscanner because
you're not queueing every mail message twice. In fact, if you have a modern
version of Sendmail with SuperSafe set to PostMilter and MIMEDefang rejects
or tempfails a me
>
> > I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today
> > ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the
> > 2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of
> > these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my wh
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, John Rudd wrote:
> Kenneth Irving wrote:
>
> >
> > Although I liked MailScanner, I would use it only in equipments with low
> > email traffic. Maybe in your equipment, with that email volume,
> > it'll work OK.
> >
>
> My experience is exactly the opposite. In an environment
Kees Theunissen wrote:
> I'm not sure that this [scanning for viruses first] is cheaper.
It depends on what you do with the mail. If you discard or
reject spam or spam scoring above a threshold, then it's almost
certainly cheaper to spam-scan first. If you're only tagging spam
but throwing away
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, John Rudd wrote:
> 3) MIMEDefang lets you specify the order of checks. With MailScanner, you
> HAVE to do SpamAssassin first, and Virus Scanning last. That means you're
> running the very CPU expensive SpamAssassin checks on viruses. With
> MIMEDefang you can set the order jus
David F. Skoll wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Btw: thank you for not squelching this topic. When I tried to have a
similar discussion on the MailScanner list, about a year ago, the
maintainer pretty much banned the topic from discussion (even though I
was, at the time, advocating the mixed approac
John Rudd wrote:
>> 1) Disk I/O: MIMEDefang will use less disk I/O than Mailscanner
>> because you're not queueing every mail message twice. In fact, if
>> you have a modern version of Sendmail with SuperSafe set to
>> PostMilter and MIMEDefang rejects or tempfails a message, that
>> queue file w
David F. Skoll wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
[...] This actually far outweighs the IO bottleneck of clamd's
socket.
Hardly any data flows over clamd's socket. MIMEDefang just sends the
command:
SCAN /path/to/filename
and clamd reads the file or files to scan itself.
General comments:
1
John Rudd wrote:
> [...] This actually far outweighs the IO bottleneck of clamd's
> socket.
Hardly any data flows over clamd's socket. MIMEDefang just sends the
command:
SCAN /path/to/filename
and clamd reads the file or files to scan itself.
General comments:
1) Disk I/O: MIMEDefan
Kenneth Irving wrote:
I've found Sendmail+MIMEDefang+clamd+spamd a very efficient combination.
Tried Postfix+MailScanner+clamscan in another computer and it's very slow,
because Mailscanner doesn't work as a deamon, and doesn't use Clam as a
deamon either, but relies on running clamscan for every
Kenneth Irving wrote:
Although I liked MailScanner, I would use it only in equipments with low
email traffic. Maybe in your equipment, with that email volume,
it'll work OK.
My experience is exactly the opposite. In an environment with .25M to
1M emails per day, MailScanner did just fine o
Mike Campbell wrote:
I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today
ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the
2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of
these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it wort
I've found Sendmail+MIMEDefang+clamd+spamd a very efficient combination.
Tried Postfix+MailScanner+clamscan in another computer and it's very slow,
because Mailscanner doesn't work as a deamon, and doesn't use Clam as a
deamon either, but relies on running clamscan for every email. The overall
res
> I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today
> ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the
> 2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of
> these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my while
>
I have been using mimedefang for a couple of years now and just today
ran across the mailscanner program. On first glance it appears that the
2 do about the same thing. Have some of the experts here tried both of
these and have a comparison as to how they differ? Is it worth my while
to spend t
20 matches
Mail list logo
