Bill, Thanks for your detailed explanation. I apologize for using incorrect terminology, but I am operating a little out of my depth as I have only 2 servers with Verio. I started with them years ago, as websites are a small part of my consulting, and as email has evolved so have the server issues, and the water has risen a little high for me here lately haha. Honestly, I was not solid on the terminology until you explained it there. It sounds like Dovecot may be the way to go on this problem. They say all I have to do is run a vinstall, and it will take care of everything, and does not require any ongoing maintenance. Is that realistic, or are there areas I should be checking occassionaly. Again, I apologize for diving in here and not having followed the RTFM gerneral rule, but I am not a server administrator per say, and am just attempting to get this issue straightened out so I can move on with things that make me some money rather than just burning time. I appreciate the help that you and Timo have provided.
Darren *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** RESPONSE TAG: 8483057671202 On 12/8/2007 at 6:17 PM Bill Cole wrote: >At 11:05 PM -0600 12/7/07, Darren McLaughlin wrote: >>Bill, >> >>There's a ringing endorsement of Verio. > >And maybe not quite fair, since your first paraphrasing came across >as further from reality than the second... > > >>They told me that the >>server had a"group mail file" and all the users had their mail >>stored together. If I installed Dovecot, they said it would split >>the mailboxes up into individual files, and reduce the load on teh >>server, thus allowing it to better handle large mailboxes. I guess >>they are just making it up as they go along... thanks for the info >>though. I suppose I will seek an independent email host somewhere >>and have their mail forwarded, or upgrade my server on verio. > >As Timo noted, that sounds a little closer to a common circumstance >of a mailstore running UW-IMAP or qpopper or ipop3d some other old >mailstore server that only uses classic mbox files. That's not one >file for everyone, but one file for all of each user's delivered but >undeleted mail. That can cause performance problems that are largely >resistant to simple CPU or memory upgrades, so changing the mailstore >format to something else like maildir (used by Dovecot and Courier) >is a better approach. This is particularly a problem if you have >users with very large collections of mail that they treat as >permanent on the server but are only accessing via POP through a >POP-only server. > >Incidentally, it is helpful to understand and use the >terminology/jargon carefully. A "mail queue" usually refers to the >directories used for very temporary storage of mail on its way in or >out of a server, while the terms "mailbox," "mailstore," "mail >spool," and "mail file" usually refer to the place(s) where delivered >messages sit until the user asks a POP or IMAP server handling those >mailboxes to delete them. Mail queues are handled by mail transport >agents, aka "MTA's" like Sendmail or Postfix. > > >>Thanks, >> >>Darren >> >>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** >> >>RESPONSE TAG: 8483057671202 >>On 12/7/2007 at 10:49 PM Bill Cole wrote: >> >>>At 11:56 AM -0600 12/7/07, Darren McLaughlin wrote: >>>>Is dovecot the right choice for this problem? >>>> >>>>I have a shared server with verio. I have one particular client >>>>that sends and receives numerous large emails, and those emails were >>>>causing me to run out of processes on my verio server, and basically >>>>slow things down a great deal due to the shared mail queue. Verio >>>>suggested Dovecot to reduce server load and allow this one client to >>>>have less problems with sending and receiving email. Does this >>>>sound logical to anyone in the know? >>> >>>It does not sound right. Dovecot is not involved in sending mail. It >>>never comes anywhere near the mail queue. >>> >>>It does sound about par for the course for Verio support though. Spot on. >>>-- >>>Bill Cole >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>No virus found in this incoming message. >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1176 - Release Date: >>>12/6/2007 11:15 PM >> >> >>.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. >>Darren McLaughlin >>Mindstream Technologies >>"Business Technology Consulting" >> >>C: (217) 841-5167 >>P: (217) 867-2522 >>F: (217) 867-2522 >>.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. > >-- >Bill Cole >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1178 - Release Date: >12/8/2007 11:59 AM .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Darren McLaughlin Mindstream Technologies "Business Technology Consulting" C: (217) 841-5167 P: (217) 867-2522 F: (217) 867-2522 .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
