Phil,
We run almost the same configuration here
Messagewall (RBL/SPAMNET/body content tagging)
Qmail (temp spool for mail prior to Q-S getting it)
Qmail with Qmail-Scanner (uvscan,fprot)
Running on Redhat 7.3
I have looked at our system and haven't seen anything like what your
describing.
pstree
|-svscanboot-+-readproctitle
| `-svscan-+-2*[supervise---qmail-send-+-qmail-clean]
| | |-qmail-lspawn]
| | `-qmail-rspawn]
| |-5*[supervise---multilog]
| |-supervise---tcpserver
|
|-supervise---tcpserver---5*[qmail-smtpd---recordio]
| `-supervise---messagewall
we have this flow - SMTP in -> Messagewall (real ip:25) -> Qmail
(127.0.0.1:25) -> Qmail-scanner 127.0.0.1:26
This way qmail handles the queueing to Qmail-scannner not Messagewall.
Because Messagewall holds the smtp sessions open and Qmail-scanner
doesn't close until its finished with the message we wanted an
intermediary to handle load increases and large file emails.
Question: do you have Messagewall directly feeding Qmail-scanner? If so
have you tried a second qmail install to broker that delivery. We found
that if an AV update when haywire or something happend with
Qmail-scanner that the intermediary qmail install saves us. The sender
doesn't get a very sparce Messagewall message (that they some times
don't understand , Including the mail servers) and we are able to
correct the prob and still process the email. The only draw back that
we have seen in this config is the added mail hops.
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 22:35, Philip S. Hempel wrote:
> Jason Haar wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:47:38AM +1000, Joel Michael wrote:
> >
> >>Are you reading this in a non-monospaced font?
> >
> >
> >
> > ...which is what I asked in the message-before-last :-) I see perl calling
> > qmail-smtpd, you see tcpserver calling all the qmail-smtpd's.
> >
> > Which one is it?
> >
> > The latter is correct, the former is most definitely not
> >
> >
>
> The reason for the other smtp servers is that messagewall uses pipelining
> to talk to each server. This opens a default number of smtp connections per
> each messagewall child.
>
>
> BTW to repeat, this confuration has worked for me at least three years, not
> including messagewall, where messagewall has been working with this
> configuration for at least 6 months.
--
Ron Culler
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel
http://hpc.devchannel.org/
_______________________________________________
Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
