Re: replacing sanitizer w/ amavisd-new
--On Saturday, January 10, 2004 21:53 -0500 Dan MacNeil
Thanks for your reply.
Might I suggest MailScanner?
You might, some specific problems with amavisd-new that aren't present in
MailScanner might be even more helpful.
# 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
It isn't exactly supported nor unsupported....Basically it relies on the
fact that postfix can be told to use deferred transports on inbound,
automatically forcing everything to go into the deferred queue. You run
one copy of postfix in that mode. Another in a normal mode, minus
smtp/incoming mail. I haven't had any problems with truncated email nor
duplicate deliveries at all with recent-ish Postfix. MAilscanner monitors
the deferred queue, pulling messages out of there and working on them,
putting them into the inbound pickup area on the other postfix instance
after processing. The sytem works well and is quick.
I don't see how postfix could be responsible for multiple deliveries in
this scenario, nor how mailscanner would cause it. The only time that sort
of thing would happen is for people who don't follow the instructions and
don't put the three queues (mailscanner, inbound postfix, outbound postfix)
on the same partition/filesystem. This is a MUST. mailscanner simply
relinks the files into/out of work areas, this is fast, and atomic,
assuming it's on the same filesystem. Otherwise if it's not the same
filesystem you have to copy to/from staging areas to achieve the atomicity.
MailScanner catches about 30% more 'dangerous content' and virii than
amavisd-new given the same virus scanner because MS seems to unpack more
thoroughly/properly. MS supports/integrates the update system of all the
virus scanners it supports negating the need to run a separate update
cronjob all the time. MS supports throttles, amavisd does not, and so MS
will be much nicer to an overloaded/very briskly loaded system than
amavisd. amvisd requires copying the message multiple times, MS reduces
this by using the link/unlink method that all mailservers use nowadays
internally to their queues.
MS does require running two separate copies of postfix, that amavisd does
not. There's a point for amavis. amavis eliminates unnecesary code from
the resultant script at ./configure time, MailScanner doesn't. That said
though MailScanner seems to work faster on my system.
Not sure how much else to go on about this.
Modwest Sr. Systems Administrator
Powerful, Affordable Web Hosting