No, i know it runs fine, after about 2-3 milion emails processed, i know .. Really.. And no i did not ignore him, but i want mailscanner and i want postfix and not exim.
Did you even try it and test it? And if so, what did you encounter?? I only found 1 thing and thats fixed. something with long queue id-s and releasing to ms exchange servers, these did not arrive. But again thats fixed now. Greetz, Louis > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: john-post...@peachfamily.net > [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] Namens John Peach > Verzonden: woensdag 13 december 2017 16:56 > Aan: L.P.H. van Belle; Postfix users > Onderwerp: Re: Question regarding use of amavisd-new > > On 12/13/2017 10:52 AM, L.P.H. van Belle wrote: > > Hai, > > > > > > mailscanner runs fine here for about 5-6 years now, with postfix. > > Mailscanner + postfix (postscreen) rules here :-) > > You *think* it's been running fine. When the author of postfix > specifically warns against using it, it would be foolhardy to > ignore him. > > > > > But if you want a quicky to test. > > https://efa-project.org/ = Mailscanner + mailwatch +... > Lots of extra's. > > > > > > Greetz, > > > > Louis > > > > > > > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > >> Van: postfixlists-070...@billmail.scconsult.com > >> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] Namens Bill Cole > >> Verzonden: woensdag 13 december 2017 16:46 > >> Aan: Postfix users > >> Onderwerp: Re: Question regarding use of amavisd-new > >> > >> On 13 Dec 2017, at 4:45 (-0500), Maarten wrote: > >> > >>> According to their documentation using MailScanner with > >> postfix works > >>> too. > >>> > >>> https://www.mailscanner.info/postfix/ > >> > >> Yes, and there's a link at the bottom of that page to the > postfix.org > >> add-on page which specifically warns against MailScanner. > >> > >>> What would be the advantage to switching to something like > >>> amavisd-new? > >> > >> The advantage to something that uses the SMTP Proxy > interface or the > >> Milter interface is that you can trust that it won't be > >> broken without > >> warning or documentation in a future Postfix release. > Apart from the > >> risk that it relies on Postfix not changing queue structures and > >> behaviors which are explicitly unsupported and subject to change, > >> MailScanner works directly with the Postfix queue in a way > >> that Wietse > >> has been saying for years is already not safe. I haven't > analyzed the > >> Postfix queue-handling code (life is too short...) but I trust his > >> judgment of safety in working with the Postfix queue over > >> that of anyone > >> who didn't write that code. The MailScanner argument > >> (essentially that > >> what they do doesn't break enough to notice) is entirely > unpersuasive. > >> > >> -- > >> Bill Cole > >> b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org > >> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) > >> Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > John > PGP Public Key: 412934AC > >
