Hah!!! This list is just too calm and mundane. The only thing we argue about is the ''announce'' list vs. the ''user'' list. ;) So, it''s springtime! I''m seeing all the regularly scheduled ''oil'' threads on my motorcycle lists and thought "oh what the heck, lets get the ''oil'' thread going over on the CentOS list!" And, I do not by any means want to start a big battle here.. hope everyone is civil... but I''ve been with Sendmail now for a long time and have been slow to consider Postfix, mostly due to ''other available programs and tie ins''. It does seem however in the last year or so, Postfix is being supported by most of those ''others''. So, let the emails fly... Postfix vs. Sendmail.. I''d like to hear a good input on the whys and whynots of each. I might just take the dive and it seems EL 4 is a good dividing line for so many other apps, maybe I should do this as well. Best, John Hinton <hoping he is not forever hated for starting this one> :)
John Hinton wrote:> And, I do not by any means want to start a big battle here.. hope > everyone is civil...Sendmail is lame and all of it''s users are ignorant fools! Postfix is the only way!!!! Flame ON!!!! :) Seriously, I like Postfix. I think the configuration is much easier to understand. For years I was the "admin" of the sendmail server but really had no idea what was going on. When I switched to my new job, I decided to try out postfix and in doing so I learned more about email and how it works then I ever did using sendmail. --Ajay
On Mar 24, 2005, at 7:39 PM, John Hinton wrote:> And, I do not by any means want to start a big battle here.. hope > everyone is civil... but I''ve been with Sendmail now for a long time > and have been slow to consider Postfix, mostly due to ''other available > programs and tie ins''. It does seem however in the last year or so, > Postfix is being supported by most of those ''others''. > > So, let the emails fly... Postfix vs. Sendmail.. I''d like to hear a > good input on the whys and whynots of each. I might just take the dive > and it seems EL 4 is a good dividing line for so many other apps, > maybe I should do this as well.There are an endless number of bullet points supporting each. I''ll just leave you with two ideas to chew on: - Nobody has ever claimed that Sendmail is simpler to configure than Postfix. - Should your configuration syntax really resemble a programming language? P.S. Good timing, by the way. No Starch Press has just released a new Postfix book. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Jason Dixon wrote:> P.S. Good timing, by the way. No Starch Press has just released a new > Postfix book.Sweet. I''ve been waiting for this book for the last 6 months! http://www.postfix-book.com/ --Ajay
On Thursday 24 March 2005 04:39 pm, John Hinton wrote:> So, let the emails fly... Postfix vs. Sendmail..Exim. Because it''s easy to understand and easy to configure. Jeff -- Jeff Lasman, nobaloney.net, P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA 92517 US Professional Internet Services & Support / Consulting / Colocation Our blists address used on lists is for list email only Phone +1 951 324-9706, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html"
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 18:39, John Hinton wrote:> So, let the emails fly... Postfix vs. Sendmail.. I''d like to hear a good > input on the whys and whynots of each. I might just take the dive and it > seems EL 4 is a good dividing line for so many other apps, maybe I > should do this as well.Big plus for sendmail is being able to run MimeDefang: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/penguin/open_source_mimedefang.php which will split out attachments and run your choice of spam and virus scanners and do a lot of other stuff while connected to the sendmail milter interface so you can still reject or tmp_fail at the smtp level. -- Les Mikesell les@futuresource.com
John Hinton said....> Hah!!! This list is just too calm and mundane. The only thing we argue > about is the ''announce'' list vs. the ''user'' list. ;) So, it''s > springtime! I''m seeing all the regularly scheduled ''oil'' threads on my > motorcycle lists and thought "oh what the heck, lets get the ''oil'' > thread going over on the CentOS list!" > > And, I do not by any means want to start a big battle here.. hope > everyone is civil... but I''ve been with Sendmail now for a long time and > have been slow to consider Postfix, mostly due to ''other available > programs and tie ins''. It does seem however in the last year or so, > Postfix is being supported by most of those ''others''. > > So, let the emails fly... Postfix vs. Sendmail.. I''d like to hear a good > input on the whys and whynots of each.I''ve run Sendmail, Qmail and Postfix servers. By and far, I prefer Postfix. It is much easier to understand and configure. Sendmail certainly has it''s good points as well, but for all I have done, Postfix has fit the need nicely. Just my 2cents. ~Dan
Les Mikesell wrote:>On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 18:39, John Hinton wrote: > > > >>So, let the emails fly... Postfix vs. Sendmail.. I''d like to hear a good >>input on the whys and whynots of each. I might just take the dive and it >>seems EL 4 is a good dividing line for so many other apps, maybe I >>should do this as well. >> >> > >Big plus for sendmail is being able to run MimeDefang: >http://www.roaringpenguin.com/penguin/open_source_mimedefang.php >which will split out attachments and run your choice of spam >and virus scanners and do a lot of other stuff while connected >to the sendmail milter interface so you can still reject or >tmp_fail at the smtp level. > > >mailscanner is*/ far/* superior to mimedefang IMHO. Check it out, http://mailscanner.info ''Tis a breeze to configure. As for the postfix vs sendmail debate. I run both.... Mailscanner and sendmail on my virus/spam/phising filtering gateway and postfix on my back end mail store/IMAP server. That way I get the best of both worlds.
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 23:19, Barads wrote:> > > >Big plus for sendmail is being able to run MimeDefang: > >http://www.roaringpenguin.com/penguin/open_source_mimedefang.php > >which will split out attachments and run your choice of spam > >and virus scanners and do a lot of other stuff while connected > >to the sendmail milter interface so you can still reject or > >tmp_fail at the smtp level. > > > > > > > mailscanner is*/ far/* superior to mimedefang IMHO. Check it out, > > http://mailscanner.infoSuperior in what way(s)? I see it can do some of the same things as mimedefang but can''t see anything better - but since there isn''t a concise feature list, maybe I missed it. The things I like about mimedefang are that sendmail''s own access and other checks run along with whatever you add in mimedefang before you accept at the smtp level so you can reject without having to construct a bounce message, and that mimedefang runs as a user without access to the rest of the mail system, and it runs as a daemon so you aren''t starting new processes for every message. -- Les Mikesell les@futuresource.com
Jeff Lasman wrote:>>So, let the emails fly... Postfix vs. Sendmail.. >> >> > >Exim. > >Because it''s easy to understand and easy to configure. > >Jeff > >And monolithic. My pluses for postfix: - modular: I can easely enable or disable services through it''s master.cf file. I can limit almost everything and the resources - policy server: if something not included I can write a policy server or extend the existing ones. And without programming in C or modifying the source directly. I don''t complain about C but it''s much faster to develop something in Python eg. - very sophisticated restriction classes - I''m able to create restriction classes and incorporate it to the mainstream restrictions (the available types for restrictions are the same but I can play with them just like a children with LEGO technics) - much more faster bye, Ago
Les Mikesell wrote:>On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 23:19, Barads wrote: > > >>>Big plus for sendmail is being able to run MimeDefang: >>>http://www.roaringpenguin.com/penguin/open_source_mimedefang.php >>>which will split out attachments and run your choice of spam >>>and virus scanners and do a lot of other stuff while connected >>>to the sendmail milter interface so you can still reject or >>>tmp_fail at the smtp level. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>mailscanner is*/ far/* superior to mimedefang IMHO. Check it out, >> >>http://mailscanner.info >> >> > >Superior in what way(s)? I see it can do some of the same >things as mimedefang but can''t see anything better - but since >there isn''t a concise feature list, maybe I missed it. The >things I like about mimedefang are that sendmail''s own >access and other checks run along with whatever you add >in mimedefang before you accept at the smtp level so you >can reject without having to construct a bounce message, >and that mimedefang runs as a user without access to >the rest of the mail system, and it runs as a daemon >so you aren''t starting new processes for every message. > > >Dont get me wrong, I like mimedefang but mailscanner is at the next level. Having run mimedefang for a few months and now having run mailscanner for a few months I think that mailscanner is superior in the following ways; Mailscanner has ONE configuration file that controls its behaviour spamassasin''s behaviour and any virus scanners behaviour. This file is very very well commented and makes it easy to configure. Mimedefang had me editing perl scripts and adding subroutines etc etc to get it to perform in a similar way, not configuration friendly and most of the time it seems like a quick hack of a system. Mailscanner works with most well known MTAs, sendmail, postfix, exim etc etc Mailscanner is being actively development and supported. I think mimedefang went for several months without an update. Mailscanner''s documentation is better/more professional than mimedefang''s. Mailscanner''s messages, notifications and quarantine hadnling is more professional than mimedefang''s. IMO Some of mimedefangs features are not very friendly, for example, the ''unquarantine''. And, given that my mailscanner configuration is running in conjunction with sendmail, I too have the access features of sendmail, greylists and RBLs ! As far as rejecting spam during the SMTP session is concerned......... it seems cool at first but I dont know if there is any *real* benefit it as you have to receive all of the message anyway before determining that it is spam, so why not just receive it and tag it then ? No need for a bounce. Mailscanner runs as a daemon too. Anyway, dont take my work for it, get a centos 4 box, download the mailscanner RPMS from the website, get the clamav rpms from dag wieers site and in 15 minutes you''ll have the whole thing working like a charm. Oh , and that will include make 6 lines or so of changes to the standard mailscanner config. Bards.
Am Fr, den 25.03.2005 schrieb Barads um 10:09:> Dont get me wrong, I like mimedefang but mailscanner is at the next level.I don''t see that.> Having run mimedefang for a few months and now having run mailscanner > for a few months I think that mailscanner is superior in the following ways; > > Mailscanner has ONE configuration file that controls its behaviour > spamassasin''s behaviour and any virus scanners behaviour. This file is > very very well commented and makes it easy to configure. Mimedefang had > me editing perl scripts and adding subroutines etc etc to get it to > perform in a similar way, not configuration friendly and most of the > time it seems like a quick hack of a system.Simplicity at the cost of loss of flexibility. Using MimeDefang you can implement very nice things your own with just a bit Perl code.> Mailscanner works with most well known MTAs, sendmail, postfix, exim etc etcIMHO Mailscanner needs to split the queue. At least in part that wasn''t recommended with Postfix and there even was a serious warning to do so. Did that change?> Mailscanner is being actively development and supported. I think > mimedefang went for several months without an update.Pure nonsense. MimeDefang is actively developed over it''s whole lifetime. Regularly new releases are coming out. And it is well "supported" by the developers through the mailing list.> Mailscanner''s documentation is better/more professional than mimedefang''s.I don''t share that neither. The website may look more fancy, but where is the really detailed documentation? Did you ever have a look into "man 5 mimedefang-filter" which is one of the most impressive man pages I have ever seen.> Mailscanner''s messages, notifications and quarantine hadnling is more > professional than mimedefang''s.What do you mean with "professional"? I don''t get the point. What is "unprofessional" with MimeDefang''s way to inform the mail server administrator about it''s actions?> IMO Some of mimedefangs features are not very friendly, for example, the > ''unquarantine''.Well ok, that could be better in a way to be handier.> And, given that my mailscanner configuration is running in conjunction > with sendmail, I too have the access features of sendmail, greylists and > RBLs !No contra for MimeDefang. Even the flexibility of MimeDefang is outstanding regarding to combine the other regular Sendmail/milter features. Means, you can let MimeDefang react on detections / added mail header tags by other tools in the whole mail stream.> As far as rejecting spam during the SMTP session is concerned......... > it seems cool at first but I dont know if there is any *real* benefit it > as you have to receive all of the message anyway before determining that > it is spam, so why not just receive it and tag it then ? No need for a > bounce.Of course there is a big real benefit from this. Once you accepted a mail your mail system has to handle it. Rejecting it in the data process is a very important criteria. Btw. rejecting here means not bouncing, simply giving an error DSN to the sender (E)SMTP server.> Mailscanner runs as a daemon too.MimeDefang uses embedded Perl code and is really fast.> Bards.Alexander -- Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773 legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.10-1.770_FC2smp Serendipity 11:28:56 up 8 days, 9:25, load average: 0.20, 0.14, 0.10 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil Url : http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050325/01b2abfa/attachment.bin
Alexander Dalloz wrote:>Am Fr, den 25.03.2005 schrieb Barads um 10:09: > > > >>Dont get me wrong, I like mimedefang but mailscanner is at the next level. >> >> > >I don''t see that. > >You may not see that. I do and thats just my opinion, I''m entitled to it.> > >>Having run mimedefang for a few months and now having run mailscanner >>for a few months I think that mailscanner is superior in the following ways; >> >>Mailscanner has ONE configuration file that controls its behaviour >>spamassasin''s behaviour and any virus scanners behaviour. This file is >>very very well commented and makes it easy to configure. Mimedefang had >>me editing perl scripts and adding subroutines etc etc to get it to >>perform in a similar way, not configuration friendly and most of the >>time it seems like a quick hack of a system. >> >> > >Simplicity at the cost of loss of flexibility. Using MimeDefang you can >implement very nice things your own with just a bit Perl code. > > >Ditto for mailscanner as it is written in perl too. BTW, I dont want to get involved in coding, so the "implement things of my own" is not a nice feature for me.>>Mailscanner works with most well known MTAs, sendmail, postfix, exim etc etc >> >> > >IMHO Mailscanner needs to split the queue. At least in part that wasn''t >recommended with Postfix and there even was a serious warning to do so. >Did that change? > > >I''m not sure if it''s a requirement. I use sendmail with split queue and I cant see why thats a problem. What was the serious warning ?>>Mailscanner is being actively development and supported. I think >>mimedefang went for several months without an update. >> >> > >Pure nonsense. MimeDefang is actively developed over it''s whole >lifetime. Regularly new releases are coming out. And it is well >"supported" by the developers through the mailing list. > > >I know mimedefang is still being developed, but it doesnt seem to have the same intesity of development as mailscanner. That may be either a good or a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.>>Mailscanner''s documentation is better/more professional than mimedefang''s. >> >> > >I don''t share that neither. The website may look more fancy, but where >is the really detailed documentation? Did you ever have a look into "man >5 mimedefang-filter" which is one of the most impressive man pages I >have ever seen. > > >For me its all about how the product feels. Mailscanner feels professional, mimedefang doesnt. Simple. Again its just my opinion.>>Mailscanner''s messages, notifications and quarantine hadnling is more >>professional than mimedefang''s. >> >> > >What do you mean with "professional"? I don''t get the point. What is >"unprofessional" with MimeDefang''s way to inform the mail server >administrator about it''s actions? > > >Well, to get any sort of quarantining happening I had to hack some perl subroutines, this becomes and administrative nightmare with respect to upgrades etc. Again, I *dont* want to be a coder !>>IMO Some of mimedefangs features are not very friendly, for example, the >>''unquarantine''. >> >> > >Well ok, that could be better in a way to be handier. > > >Combine mailscanner with mailwatch and you have a very nice complete solution with personal quarantime management etc.>>And, given that my mailscanner configuration is running in conjunction >>with sendmail, I too have the access features of sendmail, greylists and >>RBLs ! >> >> > >No contra for MimeDefang. Even the flexibility of MimeDefang is >outstanding regarding to combine the other regular Sendmail/milter >features. Means, you can let MimeDefang react on detections / added mail >header tags by other tools in the whole mail stream. > > >Ditto for mailscanner if you are running with sendmail, which I am. I use the greylisting milter.>>As far as rejecting spam during the SMTP session is concerned......... >>it seems cool at first but I dont know if there is any *real* benefit it >>as you have to receive all of the message anyway before determining that >>it is spam, so why not just receive it and tag it then ? No need for a >>bounce. >> >> > >Of course there is a big real benefit from this. Once you accepted a >mail your mail system has to handle it. Rejecting it in the data process >is a very important criteria. Btw. rejecting here means not bouncing, >simply giving an error DSN to the sender (E)SMTP server. > > >I think you are missing my point. if the incoming mail passes, lets say, ''access'' and ''user'' tests then you''re going to receive it , what good does it do rejecting it now if you have already wasted the time and bandwidth in receiving it ? If its spam, mark it as such and put it in the relevant folder or delete it. No need for a bounce, which in all reality is not likely to work anyways as most return addresses are false.>>Mailscanner runs as a daemon too. >> >> > >MimeDefang uses embedded Perl code and is really fast. > > >See above, mailscanner is perl too and very fast. It is also multi process (like apache) not necessarily multi threadedso it can take advantage of multiple CPUS. From memory, mimedefang is single process and can only process one mail at a time although I could well be wrong.>>Bards. >> >> > >Alexander > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS@caosity.org >http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >Cheers.
Am Fr, den 25.03.2005 schrieb Barads um 12:45:> >IMHO Mailscanner needs to split the queue. At least in part that wasn''t > >recommended with Postfix and there even was a serious warning to do so. > >Did that change?> I''m not sure if it''s a requirement. I use sendmail with split queue and > I cant see why thats a problem. What was the serious warning ?http://www.postfix.org/addon.html --> Virus/SPAM content filters "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 messages."> For me its all about how the product feels. Mailscanner feels > professional, mimedefang doesnt. Simple. Again its just my opinion.> Well, to get any sort of quarantining happening I had to hack some perl > subroutines, this becomes and administrative nightmare with respect to > upgrades etc. Again, I *dont* want to be a coder !I see your point. Your opinion, as you repeat.> I think you are missing my point. if the incoming mail passes, lets > say, ''access'' and ''user'' tests then you''re going to receive it , what > good does it do rejecting it now if you have already wasted the time and > bandwidth in receiving it ? If its spam, mark it as such and put it in > the relevant folder or delete it. No need for a bounce, which in all > reality is not likely to work anyways as most return addresses are false.No, your point is simply wrong when speaking about bounce mails. The sense of a rejection of an incoming mail during the DATA period is to not accept it first and then to bounce. Of course that leads to hitting innocent people where spammers did fake the sender address.> See above, mailscanner is perl too and very fast. It is also multi > process (like apache) not necessarily multi threadedso it can take > advantage of multiple CPUS. From memory, mimedefang is single process > and can only process one mail at a time although I could well be wrong.Not correct what you say about MimeDefang. I think you didn''t look too deep into this application. Well, your choice to use MailScanner. I don''t want to make you switch. Just wanted to argue against your comments and MimeDefang "bashing". Alexander -- Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773 legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.10-1.770_FC2smp Serendipity 13:56:28 up 8 days, 11:52, load average: 0.32, 0.27, 0.20 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil Url : http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050325/c02180cb/attachment.bin
Alexander Dalloz wrote:> Am Fr, den 25.03.2005 schrieb Barads um 12:45:>> http://www.postfix.org/addon.html > --> > Virus/SPAM content filters > "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 > messages."One of the MailScanner with postfix setups that I run handles in the region of 3 to 3.2 Million emails a day. I havent lost a single email in queue transition. My take on this ( MailScanner and Postfix not working together ) is that the Postfix people just have issues with someone using Postfix in a manner they cant understand / dont want it used. - KB -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ GnuPG Public Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
On Thursday 24 March 2005 19:51, Ajay Sharma wrote:> Seriously, I like Postfix. I think the configuration is much easier to > understand. For years I was the "admin" of the sendmail server but > really had no idea what was going on. When I switched to my new job, I > decided to try out postfix and in doing so I learned more about email > and how it works then I ever did using sendmail.There is one question I would have about switching to postfix, and that would be the compatibility of a long (VERY LONG) access control list (for the access file in sendmail) in postfix, and what the differences in access syntax that there may be. I''d kindof like to switch (to transition to the packaged kolab environment, which uses postfix), but the ACL thing (which I''ve not found in the various and voluminous postfix FAQL''s) is the only real hangup. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
I switched from sendmail 5 years ago or so. I vaguely remember the access list, so, there''s probably someone more qualified to comment, but, http://www.postfix.com/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html covers some of the ACL tricks. Postfix packages from CentOS''s postfix package also has an /etc/postfix/access file, which is worth checking out, looks to be a two column list with email address, domain, hostname or ip on the left side, and an action on the right. Might be drop in, or close to the access list sendmail uses. Jacob Leaver Senior Systems Administrator ReachONE Internet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lamar Owen" <lowen@pari.edu> To: "CentOS discussion and information list" <centos@caosity.org> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [Centos] Sendmail vs. Postfix On Thursday 24 March 2005 19:51, Ajay Sharma wrote:> Seriously, I like Postfix. I think the configuration is much easier to > understand. For years I was the "admin" of the sendmail server but > really had no idea what was going on. When I switched to my new job, I > decided to try out postfix and in doing so I learned more about email > and how it works then I ever did using sendmail.There is one question I would have about switching to postfix, and that would be the compatibility of a long (VERY LONG) access control list (for the access file in sendmail) in postfix, and what the differences in access syntax that there may be. I''d kindof like to switch (to transition to the packaged kolab environment, which uses postfix), but the ACL thing (which I''ve not found in the various and voluminous postfix FAQL''s) is the only real hangup. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Karanbir Singh wrote:> One of the MailScanner with postfix setups that I run handles in the > region of 3 to 3.2 Million emails a day. I havent lost a single email in > queue transition.Are there any advantages of using MailScanner instead of Amavisd-new? Just curious.
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 14:05 +0100, Alexander Dalloz wrote:> Am Fr, den 25.03.2005 schrieb Barads um 12:45: > > > >IMHO Mailscanner needs to split the queue. At least in part that wasn''t > > >recommended with Postfix and there even was a serious warning to do so. > > >Did that change? > > > I''m not sure if it''s a requirement. I use sendmail with split queue and > > I cant see why thats a problem. What was the serious warning ? > > http://www.postfix.org/addon.html > --> > Virus/SPAM content filters > "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 > messages."---- since you brought this up... http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/serve/cache/382.html I haven''t had problems with message duplication and/or delivery of truncated messages but having fooled with these things, and survived earlier versions of uw-imap, you learn to roll with the flow and how to fix problems or get run over. As for MailScanner, I''m using it on a few Postfix systems and I also am quite used to Sendmail I very much like the milter stuff - clamav-milter, spamass-milter and greylist-milter and I am comfortable with Sendmail I also like Postfix, think that in many ways, it makes more sense to me. By having them to choose from - we are winners as they both can do the job - albeit in slightly different ways. MailScanner is very effective too. Craig
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:29:13 +0000, Karanbir Singh <Mail-Lists@karan.org> wrote:> One of the MailScanner with postfix setups that I run handles in the > region of 3 to 3.2 Million emails a day. I havent lost a single email in > queue transition.Interesting. I was wondering about that. I love MailScanner and it''s the main reason I stuck with sendmail all these years. I got the feeling a couple years ago that MS was developed and maintained for sendmail, and that using it with Exim or Postfix was exotic, less supported, less reliable. I''m glad to hear this is not the case at this point. Do new releases of MS work right away with postfix, or do you have to wait for some sort of porting to be done? Are you on the MS mailing lists? Are MS-postfix users a big group these days? Francois
On Friday 25 March 2005 01:07 am, Deim ?goston wrote:> And monolithic.Yes, the compiled program is monolithic. I haven''t found that a problem. ...<balance snipped>... It was not I who wrote "let the emails fly", so I''m not going to try to start a war here. But I do want to point out that I''ve never found anything I need to do that I can''t do in a few lines in the exim.conf file. I''m one of those oldtimers who actually wrote (and still occasionally writes) directly to sendmail.cf (and yes, I even understand most of it). But exim.conf actually made my email administration easy and almost enjoyable <smile>. Jeff -- Jeff Lasman, nobaloney.net, P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA 92517 US Professional Internet Services & Support / Consulting / Colocation Our blists address used on lists is for list email only Phone +1 951 324-9706, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html"
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 03:09, Barads wrote:> Having run mimedefang for a few months and now having run mailscanner > for a few months I think that mailscanner is superior in the following ways; > > Mailscanner has ONE configuration file that controls its behaviour > spamassasin''s behaviour and any virus scanners behaviour. This file is > very very well commented and makes it easy to configure. Mimedefang had > me editing perl scripts and adding subroutines etc etc to get it to > perform in a similar way, not configuration friendly and most of the > time it seems like a quick hack of a system.That''s a tradeoff between ease of configuration and flexibility. For the arms race between spammers and spam scanners I prefer the flexible side as long as there are clear examples of working configurations and a helpful mailing list.> Mailscanner is being actively development and supported. I think > mimedefang went for several months without an update.Mimedefang is a subset of a supported commercial product called canit and its development seems fairly complete. Updates fixing reported bugs happen very quickly and new features can be added through the snippet of perl used for local configuration.> Mailscanner''s messages, notifications and quarantine hadnling is more > professional than mimedefang''s.Ummm, those are *completely* controlled by your local configuration in mimedefang. If you don''t like them, change it.> And, given that my mailscanner configuration is running in conjunction > with sendmail, I too have the access features of sendmail, greylists and > RBLs !With Mimedefang you can combine the RBL responses with the spam scanner scoring before deciding if you want to accept or reject. If sendmail does part by itself you have to consider these independently. Likewise you can greylist only messages with spam content because you know before issuing the smtp accept.> As far as rejecting spam during the SMTP session is concerned......... > it seems cool at first but I dont know if there is any *real* benefit it > as you have to receive all of the message anyway before determining that > it is spam, so why not just receive it and tag it then ? No need for a > bounce.If you accept everything it doesn''t make any difference. These days known viruses should be silently dropped since the sender is always forged, so that doesn''t make much difference either. However if you reject spam at a certain scanner threshold you should be notifying the sender with a polite rejection message in case your determination was incorrect. Issuing a 5xx smtp response is fast and painless on your end and if the sender is a spam-bot will be the last anyone sees of it. However if the message is really legitimate and coming through a normal relay, the text you issue along with the 5xx code will find its way back to the sender so he can rephrase and try again, following the gentleman''s agreement among MTA''s not to discard anything (that has been grudgingly broken out of necessity for viruses). If you try to construct your own bounce after accepting you end up queuing up a lot of messages to unresponsive addresses. -- Les Mikesell les@futuresource.com
Francois Caen wrote:> I love MailScanner and it''s the main reason I stuck with sendmail all > these years. I got the feeling a couple years ago that MS was > developed and maintained for sendmail, and that using it with Exim or > Postfix was exotic, less supported, less reliable.Mailscanner is a very good product, and much better at content control than amavis-new or anything else that I have seen. Postfix and MailScanner have been working fine for me at a few installations, never used it with Exim, but since the guys who write Exim are running MailScanner themselves, it be a fair guess that it works too :)> Do new releases of MS work right away with postfix, or do you have to > wait for some sort of porting to be done? Are you on the MS mailing > lists? Are MS-postfix users a big group these days?MailScanner with Postfix works, almost, out of the box now. Lesser work involed in getting it going with Postfix than with Sendmail. I know Julian is testing on EL3/4. And there are quite a few postfix and MailScanner users around ( definitely not as many as Sendmail and MailScanner users ). - KB -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ GnuPG Public Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:34 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:> > Do new releases of MS work right away with postfix, or do you have to > > wait for some sort of porting to be done? Are you on the MS mailing > > lists? Are MS-postfix users a big group these days? > > MailScanner with Postfix works, almost, out of the box now. Lesser work > involed in getting it going with Postfix than with Sendmail. I know > Julian is testing on EL3/4. And there are quite a few postfix and > MailScanner users around ( definitely not as many as Sendmail and > MailScanner users ).I use Postfix and MailScanner. -- Johnny Hughes <http://www.HughesJR.com/> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050329/cda7cf3c/attachment.bin
>I use Postfix and MailScanner.That''s a huge endorsement in my book <smile>. Any chance you wrote one of your excellent How-to''s on getting it all going? Thanks, Scott
scott.list wrote:>>I use Postfix and MailScanner. >> >> > >That''s a huge endorsement in my book <smile>. Any chance you wrote >one of your excellent How-to''s on getting it all going? > > >http://www.hughesjr.com/content/category/1/14/30/Guides -- Chris Mauritz chrism@imntv.com VP & Chief Technology Officer Independent Music Network http://www.imntv.com
> >>I use Postfix and MailScanner.> >That''s a huge endorsement in my book <smile>. Any chance you wrote > >one of your excellent How-to''s on getting it all going?> http://www.hughesjr.com/content/category/1/14/30/Guides > Chris MauritzOops, sorry about that, should have seen that on my own, but thanks very much for the pointer. I got this full printable version from link in above: http://www.linuxhelp.ca/forums/index.php?s=4419c9f8e9623db455dbf0559931c17a&act=Print&client=printer&f=15&t=3647 Thanks again, Scott
Thats a great how-to, thats what I''m running right now to send this, Centos4/postfix/mailscanner/squirellmail Craig> >> >>I use Postfix and MailScanner. > >> >That''s a huge endorsement in my book <smile>. Any chance you wrote >> >one of your excellent How-to''s on getting it all going? > >> http://www.hughesjr.com/content/category/1/14/30/Guides >> Chris Mauritz > > Oops, sorry about that, should have seen that on my own, but thanks > very much for the pointer. > > I got this full printable version from link in above: > http://www.linuxhelp.ca/forums/index.php?s=4419c9f8e9623db455dbf0559931c17a&act=Print&client=printer&f=15&t=3647 > > Thanks again, > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >