qmail Digest 2 Jan 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 868
Topics (messages 34948 through 34965):
max messages queued?
34948 by: Benjamin de los Angeles Jr .
34949 by: Russell Nelson
34953 by: Benjamin de los Angeles Jr .
34954 by: Russell Nelson
Delivery Problems
34950 by: CDR Inc
34951 by: Vince Vielhaber
Something wrong with mqil queue
34952 by: Albert Hopkins
Virtual Domains - main domain shows
34955 by: Peter Cavender
Relay management in Qmail with AtDot webmail.
34956 by: Lists
Re: max file limit
34957 by: Jim Zajkowski
Anal-ness
34958 by: I Haddenough
34959 by: John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
34960 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen
34961 by: Russell Nelson
34962 by: Russell Nelson
34965 by: David Cunningham
tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
34963 by: Mark Maggelet
34964 by: bert hubert
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the maximum number of messages that can be queued in Qmail?
Benjamin de los Angeles Jr . writes:
> What's the maximum number of messages that can be queued in Qmail?
There is no limit, however, there is only one level of hashing in the
queue. Depending on your filesystem, the practical limit may be as
low as 10,000,000, once you have increased conf-split.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Benjamin de los Angeles Jr . writes:
> > What's the maximum number of messages that can be queued in Qmail?
>
> There is no limit, however, there is only one level of hashing in the
> queue. Depending on your filesystem, the practical limit may be as
> low as 10,000,000, once you have increased conf-split.
>
I'm using ext2 fs, and where can conf-split be found? How can you
know the maximum limit for the hash for every file system?
Benjamin de los Angeles Jr. writes:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > Benjamin de los Angeles Jr . writes:
> > > What's the maximum number of messages that can be queued in Qmail?
> >
> > There is no limit, however, there is only one level of hashing in the
> > queue. Depending on your filesystem, the practical limit may be as
> > low as 10,000,000, once you have increased conf-split.
> >
>
> I'm using ext2 fs, and where can conf-split be found? How can you
> know the maximum limit for the hash for every file system?
conf-split is one of the compile-time configuration files in the
qmail-1.03 source directory. There is no "maximum" limit, only what
has proven to be a reasonable size given the performance of the file
system on the available hardware. That is, in my experience, about
3,000 for ext2 fs. You *can* go a lot higher, however the directory
access time starts to dominate any file operations, since it searches
linearly. 3,000 is about the most files you want in any directory
which is going to be frequently accessed.
If you've got that much mail queued up, and the machine still has
extra resources to deliver more mail, you could run another instance
of qmail in, say, /var/qmail2.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
In my quest to set up virtual domains thru QMAIL, it seems I must have
"wankified" the existing, working settings of QMAIL..
According to /var/log/maillog, mail is being received on behalf of the
various users of my domain.. The mail IS being received, but it is not
being delivered..
Here is the relevant maillog entries:
Jan 1 10:26:04 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.003803 new msg 2925
Jan 1 10:26:04 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.004089 info msg 2925: bytes 822 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 842 uid 509
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027309 starting delivery 1: msg 2925
to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027458 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027526 starting delivery 2: msg 2925
to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027588 status: local 2/10 remote
0/20
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc ipop3d[846]: port 110 service init from 205.216.79.61
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.164062 delivery 2: success:
did_1+0+0/
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.164279 status: local 1/10 remote
0/20
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.167743 delivery 1: success:
did_1+0+0/
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.167876 status: local 0/10 remote
0/20
Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.189881 end msg 2925
It seems the mail is GETTING to cdrinc.net but not getting delivered...
Michale
On 01-Jan-00 CDR Inc wrote:
> In my quest to set up virtual domains thru QMAIL, it seems I must have
> "wankified" the existing, working settings of QMAIL..
>
> According to /var/log/maillog, mail is being received on behalf of the
> various users of my domain.. The mail IS being received, but it is not
> being delivered..
>
> Here is the relevant maillog entries:
>
> Jan 1 10:26:04 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.003803 new msg 2925
> Jan 1 10:26:04 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.004089 info msg 2925: bytes 822 from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 842 uid 509
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027309 starting delivery 1: msg 2925
> to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027458 status: local 1/10 remote
> 0/20
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027526 starting delivery 2: msg 2925
> to local [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.027588 status: local 2/10 remote
> 0/20
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc ipop3d[846]: port 110 service init from 205.216.79.61
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.164062 delivery 2: success:
> did_1+0+0/
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.164279 status: local 1/10 remote
> 0/20
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.167743 delivery 1: success:
> did_1+0+0/
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.167876 status: local 0/10 remote
> 0/20
> Jan 1 10:26:05 cdrinc qmail: 946740365.189881 end msg 2925
Did you look in ~michale/Mailbox? ipop3d probably needs to be told the
mail is being delivered to the user's $HOME directory.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pop4.net
128K ISDN: $24.95/mo or less - 56K Dialup: $17.95/mo or less at Pop4
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
I keep getting they following message from qmail
Jan 1 17:35:57 web qmail: 946769757.815490 warning: trouble injecting bounce message,
will try later
I am unsure what is going wrong or what to do about it. Can anyone
provide me any clues?
--
Albert Hopkins
Sr. Systems Specialist
Dynacare, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi-
I have qmail running several virtual domains (and a "real" domain) on
a server. I am trying to make it so that the operation of the
virtual domains appears independent of the master domain.
The problem is:
1) bounce messages for [EMAIL PROTECTED] come from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) A message delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has the following at the
top of it's header:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course, I can fix this by getting rid of /virtualdomans and
putting everything in /locals, but that has drawbacks too: I want
each domain to have it's own "MAILER-DAEMON' and 'postmaster'...
TIA...
We have qmail running with AtDot webmail and have recive working fine but
when it comes to sending email out of the local domain it has an error. I
also have the same trouble with external mail programs like Outlook not
being able to send email. Can someone help. Thanks in advance.
System is FreeBSD3.3 and current Qmail of the web site and current Atdot
webmail of the web site with Qpopper as the pop3.
List Bot account for 1st Penshurst Scout Group.
http://www.1stpenshurst-scouts.asn.au
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 10:03:53PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
} That is, in my experience, about
} 3,000 for ext2 fs. You *can* go a lot higher, however the directory
} access time starts to dominate any file operations, since it searches
} linearly. 3,000 is about the most files you want in any directory
} which is going to be frequently accessed.
Or, if you enjoy living on the bleeding edge, install reiserfs, which
uses a btree to index files. I've used this on a webserver that
needed to store per-session data in small files; reiserfs didn't slow
down until we got past about 500,000 files in one directory.
Jim
--
Jim Zajkowski
Why is DJB so analy-retentive about licensing qmail? Why won't he just GPL
it? Why does he insist on only allowing the most obtuse of Unix-geek
documentation? Why are we at the mercy of D. Sill and R. Nelson ( God
bless'em both) for any kind of intelligent feedback/doc?
I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he won't open
source his code? A case of Ivory Tower toxic syndrome?
--lurker
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
DJB emails the list plenty with support, but lets just put that side and
think for a second here:
You spend most of your day programming FOR FREE for people to use as they
see fit (within limits) and then, you spend LOTS of time writing
documentation for the software that you make available, FREELY.
People ask questions on the list about the software that you wrote, FOR
FREE, and the answers are covered in the documentation, that you wrote,
FOR FREE.
Do you see a pattern here?
AFAIK, if he wants a strict license, who the hell am i to whine about it.
I love qmail. Yes, i wish it had a better license, but i'm sure not going
to go talking shit about the man that programmed it because i disagree
with him. If you dont like it, dont run his software. Then, you also whine
that the man doesnt give any type of feedback, when if you search the
archives, you will clearly see him posting repsonses to intelligently
asked questions time and time again.
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, I Haddenough wrote:
>Why is DJB so analy-retentive about licensing qmail? Why won't he just GPL
>it? Why does he insist on only allowing the most obtuse of Unix-geek
>documentation? Why are we at the mercy of D. Sill and R. Nelson ( God
>bless'em both) for any kind of intelligent feedback/doc?
>
>I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he won't open
>source his code? A case of Ivory Tower toxic syndrome?
>
>--lurker
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
_ __ _____ __ _________
______________ /_______ ___ ____ /______ John Gonzalez/Net.Tech
__ __ \ __ \ __/_ __ `__ \/ __ /_ ___/ MDC Computers/netMDC!
_ / / / `__/ /_ / / / / / / /_/ / / /__ (505)437-7600/fax-437-3052
/_/ /_/\___/\__/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ \___/ http://www.netmdc.com
[---------------------------------------------[system info]-----------]
11:40pm up 163 days, 9:59, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.07
+ "I Haddenough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he
| won't open source his code?
Eh? Qmail isn't open source?
- Harald
I Haddenough writes:
> Why is DJB so analy-retentive about licensing qmail?
Because he saw what happened to sendmail, and he fears it would happen
to qmail. I've sought to allay those fears, but to no avail. It *is*
a little embarrassing, me being a board member of the Open Source
Initiative while deriving the bulk of my income from a non-open-source
product. :)
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Harald Hanche-Olsen writes:
> + "I Haddenough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> | I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he
> | won't open source his code?
>
> Eh? Qmail isn't open source?
No. An OSI-approved Open Source license gives recipients of the code
the freedom to redistribute modified binaries. Without that freedom,
your software isn't OSI Certified Open Source.
And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) has become much less strident over the
years. If asked, I'm sure he would praise Dan Bernstein for giving us
the freedom to download the source of qmail and the freedom to
redistribute unmodified binaries. But he wouldn't call qmail free
software for the same reason OSI would refuse to certify qmail as Open
Source.
That one essential freedom is missing. Dan has stated his reasons for
denying us that freedom. I disagree with him, but as Linus Torvalds
has said many a time, "He who writes the code picks the license."
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
Would this license also prohibit me from modifying the source for my own
personal use (not for redistribution?)
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Anal-ness
> Harald Hanche-Olsen writes:
> > + "I Haddenough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > | I mean, shit, he rattles cages with the gov't over krypto, but he
> > | won't open source his code?
> >
> > Eh? Qmail isn't open source?
>
> No. An OSI-approved Open Source license gives recipients of the code
> the freedom to redistribute modified binaries. Without that freedom,
> your software isn't OSI Certified Open Source.
>
> And RMS (Richard M. Stallman) has become much less strident over the
> years. If asked, I'm sure he would praise Dan Bernstein for giving us
> the freedom to download the source of qmail and the freedom to
> redistribute unmodified binaries. But he wouldn't call qmail free
> software for the same reason OSI would refuse to certify qmail as Open
> Source.
>
> That one essential freedom is missing. Dan has stated his reasons for
> denying us that freedom. I disagree with him, but as Linus Torvalds
> has said many a time, "He who writes the code picks the license."
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your
country
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people
to
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry
M.
>
@40000000386f36191f0ac50c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
I'm getting tons of these lines in my logs, what would cause it?
what port is tcpserver trying to bind to?
thx,
- Mark
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:29:33AM -0800, Mark Maggelet wrote:
> @40000000386f36191f0ac50c tcpserver: fatal: unable to bind: address already used
> I'm getting tons of these lines in my logs, what would cause it?
> what port is tcpserver trying to bind to?
Do some more work for us, we aren't clairvoyant. It appears that another
tcpserver is running already. Perhaps you invoked one by hand and then made
svscan/supervise scripts.
Try and figure out what tcpservers and running, and who's their parent.
Regards,
bert.
--
+---------------+ | http://www.rent-a-nerd.nl
| nerd for hire | |
+---------------+ | - U N I X -
| | Inspice et cautus eris - D11T'95
