qmail Digest 16 Jul 1999 10:00:01 -0000 Issue 699
Topics (messages 27851 through 27882):
qmail and hypermail
27851 by: Markus Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27854 by: Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
atdot with qmail
27852 by: aw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27868 by: Doug Lumpkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Load Balancing Of 2 Qmail servers
27853 by: Tony Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27856 by: "Soffen, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27857 by: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27861 by: nox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27867 by: nox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trying to achieve maximum speed!
27855 by: Todd at NM Technet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27858 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail Retrieving Prob.
27859 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail-send needs full cpu
27860 by: Siegfried Kerkow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27865 by: Siegfried Kerkow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
qmail queue
27862 by: "Pieckiel, Kevin A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27863 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
installed Summer's qmail.rpm, imap,.. and am lost without mail..
27864 by: Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2)
27866 by: Michele Nicosia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Advantages with qmail and using reiserfs???
27869 by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27870 by: Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27871 by: Justin Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27872 by: Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27873 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27874 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27875 by: Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27876 by: Troy Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27877 by: "Racer X" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27879 by: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quick & Dirty way to filter attachment: Part 2
27878 by: "Noel Mistula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Received: from unknown" header seems to slow sending mail, what causes it?
27880 by: "Peter Janett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Not sure
27881 by: "A.Y. Sjarifuddin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27882 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 06:46:47PM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> I translated this to:-
> # Put SCH101 group messages to web page via hypermail
> b_duke
> | /usr/local/bin/hypermail -i -u -c /home/web/.hmrc.sch101
>
> in /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-sch101. I tried a message to sch101 and
> it gets defered. ps shows hypermail is running but it just carries
> on running and does nothing.
>
> Can anyone suggest what is wrong here.
It is a long time that I looked at hypermail the last time, but I think
I can remember it
a) relies on the Mbox-Header line, so you have to use
|preline /usr/local/bin/hypermail -i -u -c /home/web/.hmrc.sch101
b) it was(?) SLOW. Depending on the size of your archive it could take up to
15 minutes (maybe even more) until the message was inserted.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Yeah, yo mama dresses
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you funny and you need
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | a mouse to delete files
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 |
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 06:46:47PM +1100, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> > I translated this to:-
> > # Put SCH101 group messages to web page via hypermail
> > b_duke
> > | /usr/local/bin/hypermail -i -u -c /home/web/.hmrc.sch101
> >
> > in /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-sch101. I tried a message to sch101 and
> > it gets defered. ps shows hypermail is running but it just carries
> > on running and does nothing.
> >
> > Can anyone suggest what is wrong here.
>
> It is a long time that I looked at hypermail the last time, but I think
> I can remember it
> a) relies on the Mbox-Header line, so you have to use
> |preline /usr/local/bin/hypermail -i -u -c /home/web/.hmrc.sch101
> b) it was(?) SLOW. Depending on the size of your archive it could take up to
> 15 minutes (maybe even more) until the message was inserted.
>
Yes. That did the trick. It works now. It was pretty fast but I was
testing in an archive with only two messages. Thanks for the help.
Cheers, Brian.
--
Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke)
Chemistry, Faculty of Science, IT and Education, Northern Territory University,
Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/chemistry/compchem.html
Hi,
I installed atdot package which is web-based e-mail check software. I
have got problems to send a message using
atdot. Reading and deleting messages works just fine. Is there anybody
with an experience with atdot and willing
to help me.
All *.pl files from atdot are executable and readable by world. There
are in ./usr/local/apache/cgi-bin/atdot directory owned
by nobody as all *.pl files. Neverthless, Apache shows 500 error and
error_log file says - premature end of script headers in send.pl. Thats
it.
Thanks in advance.
Andrzej
I've run atdot sucessfully with qmail a few times... Send me a private
email with more info and I would be glad to help...
--
Doug Lumpkin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
aw wrote:
> Hi,
> I installed atdot package which is web-based e-mail check software. I
> have got problems to send a message using
> atdot. Reading and deleting messages works just fine. Is there anybody
> with an experience with atdot and willing
> to help me.
> All *.pl files from atdot are executable and readable by world. There
> are in ./usr/local/apache/cgi-bin/atdot directory owned
> by nobody as all *.pl files. Neverthless, Apache shows 500 error and
> error_log file says - premature end of script headers in send.pl. Thats
> it.
> Thanks in advance.
> Andrzej
Hi all ,
Has anyone ever attempted to have a single config file for Qmail ie.
/var/qmail/control being shared by 2 servers.
and then the servers will be identical. Both running Redhat 6.0 with kernel
2.2.10
and both be a DELL PowerEdge 2300 with Duel PII 400 chips and 256M Ram.
and a 18G hdd.
with the /var/qmail dir set to +- 9G
could i get them to share the configs and load balance ?
Tony Wade
The Internet Solution
Tel: (+27 11) 283 5483
Fax: (+27 11) 283 5401
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.is.co.za
BOFH excuse for the day:
Due to the CDA, we no longer have a root account.
The way I do it is with rdist. I have one machine the "master" and I
rdist the files to the 2ndary machine. Just make sure you kill/restart
qmail to ensure that any control file changes get read in and activated.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Wade [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 9:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Load Balancing Of 2 Qmail servers
>
> Hi all ,
>
> Has anyone ever attempted to have a single config file for Qmail ie.
>
> /var/qmail/control being shared by 2 servers.
>
> and then the servers will be identical. Both running Redhat 6.0 with
> kernel
> 2.2.10
> and both be a DELL PowerEdge 2300 with Duel PII 400 chips and 256M
> Ram.
> and a 18G hdd.
>
> with the /var/qmail dir set to +- 9G
>
> could i get them to share the configs and load balance ?
>
>
> Tony Wade
> The Internet Solution
> Tel: (+27 11) 283 5483
> Fax: (+27 11) 283 5401
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web: http://www.is.co.za
> BOFH excuse for the day:
> Due to the CDA, we no longer have a root account.
>
Tony Wade wrote:
> Hi all ,
>
> Has anyone ever attempted to have a single config file for Qmail ie.
>
> /var/qmail/control being shared by 2 servers.
>
> and then the servers will be identical. Both running Redhat 6.0 with kernel
> 2.2.10
> and both be a DELL PowerEdge 2300 with Duel PII 400 chips and 256M Ram.
> and a 18G hdd.
>
> with the /var/qmail dir set to +- 9G
>
> could i get them to share the configs and load balance ?
Maybe joining the two servers in a Beowulf cluster would be less problematic?
begin:vcard
n:Castro;Juan
tel;work:540-9100 Ramal 46
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.appi.com.br/~jcastro
org:APPI Informática;Desenvolvimento
adr:;;Av. Ataulfo de Paiva, 135/1410 - Leblon;Rio de Janeiro;RJ;22499-900;Brasil
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Consultor
note;quoted-printable:One man alone cannot fight the future. USE LINUX!=0D=0A=0D=0A -- The X Racer
fn:Juan Carlos Castro y Castro
end:vcard
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 03:04:51PM +0200, Tony Wade wrote:
> Hi all ,
>
> Has anyone ever attempted to have a single config file for Qmail ie.
>
> /var/qmail/control being shared by 2 servers.
>
> and then the servers will be identical. Both running Redhat 6.0 with kernel
> 2.2.10
> and both be a DELL PowerEdge 2300 with Duel PII 400 chips and 256M Ram.
> and a 18G hdd.
>
> with the /var/qmail dir set to +- 9G
>
> could i get them to share the configs and load balance ?
You might want to look into Foundry Networks ServerIron
products, or Cisco's Local Director products. They're a
little pricey, but if you're buying Dell Poweredge 2300's
in the first place, i suspect this is not a problem =)
Personally, i'll vouch for the ServerIron.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 10:58:41PM -0400, Victor Tavares wrote:
> There can be problems with load-balancing over two mail servers, depending
> on their purpose. If they only provide outgoing mail, or are a mail hub for
> internal mail, then load-balancing with a localdirector or similar device
> is not a problem. However, if your users need to pick up the mail from
> either one of the servers - i.e. mbox or maildir - then the mail needs to
> be delivered to a shared volume - eg NFS, storage appliance, third server,
> etc.
Oops- i should have mentioned that. Ideally i suppose you could
use something like a netapp for the user volumes connected
to the qmail machine via a private segment. Whatever works i suppose.
> The above was done more for availability than performance, but man, the
> performance is pretty good.
Qmail has always given me stellar performance on a single machine-
i imagine a scenario such as you've described could only yield
even better performance.
Cheers,
Jonathan
russ, all,
a quick question below...
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Is there any ballpark threshhold where these changes become useful?
>
> My rule of thumb is that every directory should have <1000 files in it.
is this filesystem-dependant? ie: does this assume the fs is using some
O(n) algorithm for directories (some, like XFS on IRIX and newer fs's for
linux like Reiserfs (i believe) use BTrees for directories giving them
O(logn) behavior, which should mean massively larger numbers of files in a
directory without a performance hit). maybe i'm misunderstanding the point
of the change, though.
todd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Todd at NM Technet writes:
> > My rule of thumb is that every directory should have <1000 files in it.
>
> is this filesystem-dependant?
Yes.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Hi,
I am new on this mailing list.
I went thru the site for the installation of qmail on my Linux m/c. I am
running Redhat 6.0 with kernel 2.2.5-15.
After installing qmail, I am able to send mails, but I am unable to
receive my mails. As of now my mails are getting downloaded on my mail
server running sendmail. But, I am unable to retrieve mails from my mail
server. And my mail server is also my gateway to the isp.
Could someone direct me as to what is required to be done for accessing my
mails from the mail server.
Thanks.
-Rupesh
Hello
I had an crash on my mail machine last week. Now all is working fine,
but "qmail-send" takes up all the cpu time that it can get. The
machine shows 100% all time. And on some times the machine reboots by
self. I didn't found the error yet, but think this is something with
the full cpu loading. I'm working with qmail 1.01 and freebsd 3.1.
Where can I look for to get this problem handled? Any idea?
Thanks
Sigi.
>On Thu 1999-07-15 (15:28), Siegfried Kerkow wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>>I had an crash on my mail machine last week. Now all is working
>>fine, but "qmail-send" takes up all the cpu time that it can get.
>>The machine shows 100% all time. And on some times the machine
>>reboots by self. I didn't found the error yet, but think this is
>>something with the full cpu loading. I'm working with qmail 1.01 and
>>freebsd 3.1. Where can I look for to get this problem handled? Any
>>idea?
>
>We had a problem like this once when we upgraded, where the qmail
>daemons and some other processes were taking loads of CPU.
>Recompiling qmail (and the other programs) solved the problem.
Hmmm, I think that is not necessary.
I found my "bug"! I deleted that good seeing "trigger" file in
"/var/qmail/queue/lock" and made it new. Now it works fine!
Thanks.
Sigi.
>> Thanks
>> Sigi.
>
> - Keith
>--
>Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa
>Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/
>IRC : Panthras JAPH
>
>"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a
>perl script"
>
>Standard disclaimer.
>---
>
Hello, List.
I'm new to qmail--I just installed it a few days ago.
I've learned much about qmail, and I have mail working just as I
envisioned it would. As of yesterday, when I run qmail-qstat, it says
there is one message in the queue--apparently it has been deferred for
some reason. When I run qmail-qread, nothing is output just as if the
queue were empty. When I run killall -ALRM qmail-send, nothing is
written to the /var/log/maillog indicating that the message was deferred
or delivered or that it even exists.
I'm running qmail 1.03 on RHL 6.0, kernel 2.2.10. How can I find this
ghost message and why is it stuck in the queue?
Thanks!
Kevin A. Pieckiel
Pieckiel, Kevin A writes:
> I've learned much about qmail, and I have mail working just as I
> envisioned it would. As of yesterday, when I run qmail-qstat, it says
> there is one message in the queue--apparently it has been deferred for
> some reason. When I run qmail-qread, nothing is output just as if the
> queue were empty.
Sounds like a partial message was written by qmail-queue. This
message will be deleted after 48 hours. Warning: I'm saying this from
memory, which as my wife will happily tell you is very suspect.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
I thought David's rpm start qmail-smtpd from inetd...
Could be tough, if you also started it under tcpserver.
Any log entries?
What is the output of
ps auxww | gerp qmail
You removed sendmail---but did you *stop* it first?
mate
Hi all,
amavis with this pacth and other than the log trouble, everything seem to
be ok.The bad thing is about the difference that i have with a normal
system connected to the internet where for remote user the right
qmil-remote is called, while on my system i use the alias-ppp maildir and
serialmail.
Someone think that it is possible to avoid sending virus alert mail to
external users using the always qmail-local???
excuse my bad english i hope soemone could help me.
thanks
Is there any advantages to using reiserfs and qmail? I assume there is
but I wanted to hear other people's experience. It seems to me that it
would be perfect for large queue structures.
-jeremy
http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------
Y2K. We're all gonna die.
> Is there any advantages to using reiserfs and qmail? I assume there is
> but I wanted to hear other people's experience. It seems to me that it
> would be perfect for large queue structures.
>
> -jeremy
I have a different, but similar, question.
We have a fairly ongoing problem with some of the users at work who don't
seem capable of cleaning out their INBOX, so they end up with 100MB mail
spools with 7000 messages in them.
I had theorized that chunking over the 100MB mailbox was slow, and that
using a maildir would be much faster, and it is except that with that many
messages, the OS slows down.
Does anyone have any suggestions (including a different filesystem -- we
just used ext2) that might help this?
Other notes: IMAP is pretty much a requirement because they want to have
server-central mailboxes, so POP3 is not a solution for us.
Thanks,
Troy
delete messages over a few months old?
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 02:38:44PM -0700, Troy Morrison wrote:
#
# > Is there any advantages to using reiserfs and qmail? I assume there is
# > but I wanted to hear other people's experience. It seems to me that it
# > would be perfect for large queue structures.
# >
# > -jeremy
#
# I have a different, but similar, question.
#
# We have a fairly ongoing problem with some of the users at work who don't
# seem capable of cleaning out their INBOX, so they end up with 100MB mail
# spools with 7000 messages in them.
#
# I had theorized that chunking over the 100MB mailbox was slow, and that
# using a maildir would be much faster, and it is except that with that many
# messages, the OS slows down.
#
# Does anyone have any suggestions (including a different filesystem -- we
# just used ext2) that might help this?
#
# Other notes: IMAP is pretty much a requirement because they want to have
# server-central mailboxes, so POP3 is not a solution for us.
#
# Thanks,
# Troy
#
--
/- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Pearson | Attention span is quickening. |
|Developer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\-------- http://www.superlibrary.com/people/justin/ ----------/
> delete messages over a few months old?
We've considered this, but generally their mail volume is pretty high. If
we leave the mailbox alone for a month, we're in this position. We've
considered a nightly batch job that moves messages over one or two weeks
old into a separate folder, and that might work ok.
I'm not convinced that we can't find an alternate solution, but it would
be nice if the solution was to make /home a "faster" filesystem.
Troy
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
>I'm not convinced that we can't find an alternate solution, but it would
>be nice if the solution was to make /home a "faster" filesystem.
>
>Troy
You could throw alot of money and hardware at the problem and hope that
cures it:
Netapp Filer perhaps
Maildir works (about as best as can be expected) over NFS
But that really is a solution _I_ wouldnt like to go with.
There also might be some kernel hacking you can do that can cope better
with many filenames in one directory, etc.
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
3:35pm up 160 days, 22:38, 4 users, load average: 0.22, 0.16, 0.12
John Gonzalez/netMDC admin writes:
> Maildir works (about as best as can be expected) over NFS
>
> But that really is a solution _I_ wouldnt like to go with.
>
> There also might be some kernel hacking you can do that can cope better
> with many filenames in one directory, etc.
If you're only talking about Maildir, the solution to a large Maildir is to
refile the mail into multiple folders.
I do not believe that using Maildirs uses up more inodes than an average
filesystem. Most filesystems allocate one inode per 4096 bytes, which
happens to be approximately the average size of an E-mail message. My
experience with Maildirs is that they scale to about a thousand messages on
a system with average CPU horsepower and reasonably fast SCSI disks.
Anything more than a thousand messages, and you should start thinking about
folder management.
--
Sam
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 03:12:59PM -0700, Troy Morrison wrote:
> I'm not convinced that we can't find an alternate solution, but it would
> be nice if the solution was to make /home a "faster" filesystem.
hmm.. unsing the INBOX in a hashed maildir style way should be enough.. what
imapd are you running?
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD eckes@irc +497257930613 BE5-RIPE
(O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
> > I'm not convinced that we can't find an alternate solution, but it would
> > be nice if the solution was to make /home a "faster" filesystem.
>
> hmm.. unsing the INBOX in a hashed maildir style way should be enough.. what
> imapd are you running?
Well, it's not "are". If I'm not mistaken, it was a patched UW server. I
think I looked at qmail-imap-0.2 also, but it's warning that most of the
IMAP protocol was unimplemented scared me away at the time.
I just noticed that www.qmail.org now lists an "improved" UW patch page,
and a different UW patched server. I'm pretty sure that neither of those
is what we used.
I was wondering at one point if there was a way to "hash" the messages in
the Maildir (somewhat like qmail's queue directory) to prevent having many
thousands of messages in a single directory. I assume that this isn't
part of the maildir spec, right?
Troy
Has anyone ever considered the possibility of using the Maildir format in a
manner similar to the qmail queue directories? That is, make it hashed
somehow to cut down on the number of files in any one directory? I realize
one of the big wins of Maildir is that you never have to worry about
locking anywhere, and I've already thought of a couple cases where avoiding
locking might be tricky.
Along those lines, I've read the discussions about patching qmail to handle
"big" queue directories, and I'm wondering if it would be possible to
dynamically grow the queue directories as needed. My idea is to make it
work similar to the Unix method for allocating disk blocks; the "indirect"
blocks would be analogous to a deeper directory structure.
I think this could improve the apparent performance of qmail, if not the
real performance. Instead of every process waiting on the kernel to
synchronize access to a large directory, the individual qmail processes
would have to navigate the directories themselves. This would break up the
"long" system calls to read directory info into more "short" calls to
change directories, which would cut down on the time that the kernel is
locked.
This is just sorta brainstorming right now, I haven't really thought about
it that much but I'd like to hear what others have to say. I have to deal
with postmaster mail here, and a couple times I've arrived to 20,000
messages in my Maildir. Trying to deal with that takes down our NFS server
(we store Maildirs on a central server), and although I can get on the
machine itself and run some shell scripts to wipe most of it, if a customer
ever got that much mail we'd have problems, so I'd like to find a way to
ensure that the Maildir won't get unmanageably big.
shag
=====
Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
...yours is not the less noble because no drum beats before you when
you go out into your daily battlefields, and no crowds shout about your
coming when you return from your daily victory or defeat.
--Robert Louis Stevenson
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thu 15 Jul 1999 14.54
Subject: Re: Advantages with qmail and using reiserfs???
> John Gonzalez/netMDC admin writes:
>
> > Maildir works (about as best as can be expected) over NFS
> >
> > But that really is a solution _I_ wouldnt like to go with.
> >
> > There also might be some kernel hacking you can do that can cope better
> > with many filenames in one directory, etc.
>
> If you're only talking about Maildir, the solution to a large Maildir is
to
> refile the mail into multiple folders.
>
> I do not believe that using Maildirs uses up more inodes than an average
> filesystem. Most filesystems allocate one inode per 4096 bytes, which
> happens to be approximately the average size of an E-mail message. My
> experience with Maildirs is that they scale to about a thousand messages
on
> a system with average CPU horsepower and reasonably fast SCSI disks.
> Anything more than a thousand messages, and you should start thinking
about
> folder management.
>
>
>
> --
> Sam
>
>
Racer X writes:
> This is just sorta brainstorming right now, I haven't really thought about
> it that much but I'd like to hear what others have to say. I have to deal
> with postmaster mail here, and a couple times I've arrived to 20,000
> messages in my Maildir. Trying to deal with that takes down our NFS server
> (we store Maildirs on a central server), and although I can get on the
> machine itself and run some shell scripts to wipe most of it, if a customer
> ever got that much mail we'd have problems, so I'd like to find a way to
> ensure that the Maildir won't get unmanageably big.
<shrug>
Implement some kind of a quota mechanism to bounce mail once maildir size
reaches some upper limit.
>
> shag
> =====
> Judd Bourgeois | CNM Network +1 (805) 520-7170
> Software Architect | 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
> ...yours is not the less noble because no drum beats before you when
> you go out into your daily battlefields, and no crowds shout about your
> coming when you return from your daily victory or defeat.
> --Robert Louis Stevenson
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thu 15 Jul 1999 14.54
> Subject: Re: Advantages with qmail and using reiserfs???
>
>
> > John Gonzalez/netMDC admin writes:
> >
> > > Maildir works (about as best as can be expected) over NFS
> > >
> > > But that really is a solution _I_ wouldnt like to go with.
> > >
> > > There also might be some kernel hacking you can do that can cope better
> > > with many filenames in one directory, etc.
> >
> > If you're only talking about Maildir, the solution to a large Maildir is
> to
> > refile the mail into multiple folders.
> >
> > I do not believe that using Maildirs uses up more inodes than an average
> > filesystem. Most filesystems allocate one inode per 4096 bytes, which
> > happens to be approximately the average size of an E-mail message. My
> > experience with Maildirs is that they scale to about a thousand messages
> on
> > a system with average CPU horsepower and reasonably fast SCSI disks.
> > Anything more than a thousand messages, and you should start thinking
> about
> > folder management.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sam
> >
> >
>
>
--
Sam
Hi,
Here is a modified version of selectively filtering
attachments.
I've use this for days already and I'm happy with it.
But again, I consider this a crude script.
Use at your own risk #:^)
Thanks
Noel Mistula
==========================================
#!/bin/bash
#
# qmail -- checkattach
# Author: Noel G. Mistula
# Date: 28 June 1999 Version: 0.1
#
# Modified: 7 July 1999 Version: 0.3
# This is release under the GNU/GPL.
# This is a very crude program. Use at your own risk.
# This will delete incoming email with executable,
# video and other attachments. Just remove/add
# whichever filetype (e.g. EXE, AVI, COM) is required.
#
# I use this in a user's .qmail file
# by adding the line
# |/usr/local/bin/checkattach
# before the ./Maildir/
#
# Start program here. Check for _not_ allowed attachment.
# This part is the new version (ver. 0.3)
printmsg () {
echo "The reason why your email was rejected is you sent an attachment of
filetype=$ATTYPE."
echo "Sorry, $ATTYPE attachment can cause problems like virus, or increase
traffic load, or delete file(s) and/or among others."
}
# The CASE selection below can be broken down into each respective filetype
# to customise the error message. I only use the generalise (printmsg)
# message above.
checktype () {
case $ATTYPE in
EXE | COM | BAT | CMD | AVI | MOV | RAM | BMP | MPE | MPG | MP3 | MP4 |
WAV | AUD)
printmsg $ATTYPE
exit 100;;
*)
;;
esac
}
# The "filename=" below can be replace with "file=" because
# sometimes other MUA's doesn't use "filename=".
ATTACHTYPE=`grep "filename=" - | gawk '{split($NF, results, ".");
r=toupper(results[2]); print r}' | cut -c -3`
for ATTYPE in $ATTACHTYPE
do
checktype $ATTYPE
done
# End of ver. 0.3
exit 0
================================================
I have just set up a a production server with Qmail, trying to mirror a development
server. The production server is a much faster
machine, but sends mail slowly, and the header includes this:
Received: from unknown ..........................
The development machine has information about itself, in place of "unknown". And
sends mail much faster.
This is a header from a mail I sent to myself from the server running Qmail.
I think I need to tell my development server it's name. :)
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Peter Janett
anyone know about this fork?
932113644.959196 starting delivery 84488: msg 37213 to local
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
932113644.959214 status: local 1/50 remote 255/255
932113644.999536 delivery 84488: deferral:
Unable_to_fork:_temporary_failure._(#4.3.0)/
932113644.999555 status: local 0/50 remote 255/255
932113646.823427 new msg 36686
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 03:31:49PM +0700, A.Y. Sjarifuddin wrote:
Out of memory/file descriptors? Try increasing these limits before
starting qmail-send, using a ulimit call in the startup script, eg.
ulimit -n 615 (twice the concurrency + 5).
> anyone know about this fork?
>
> 932113644.959196 starting delivery 84488: msg 37213 to local
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 932113644.959214 status: local 1/50 remote 255/255
> 932113644.999536 delivery 84488: deferral:
> Unable_to_fork:_temporary_failure._(#4.3.0)/
> 932113644.999555 status: local 0/50 remote 255/255
> 932113646.823427 new msg 36686
--
See complete headers for more info
