Problem fixed (or why always the simplest of it all drives you nuts the
most)
The INTERNALS file and LWQ had the answer right in front of my nose all
the time: /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger was messed up ->
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#trigger
Thanks,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a new installation of qmail running 'supervised', but whenever I
> try to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], the message is queued, it just
> sits there. Say, after sending two messages, this is what I get :
>
> $ qmail queue
> messages in queue: 2
> messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 2
>
> I'm not even sure the message is passed to qmail-send and that's where
> it "sits", or it sits right before that (??). Doing a 'qmail doqueue'
> doesn't help. They just sit there. Sometimes (only sometimes),
> restarting qmail-send does it, but normally it doesn't help either. All
> processes seem to be running fine:
>
> 447 ? S 0:00 svscan
> 448 ? S 0:00 supervise qmail-send
> 449 ? S 0:00 supervise log
> 450 ? S 0:00 supervise qmail-smtpd
> 451 ? S 0:00 supervise log
> 454 ? S 0:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/log/qmail
> 455 ? S 0:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog t
> /var/log/qmail/smtpd
> 1272 ? S 0:00 qmail-send
> 1274 ? S 0:00 /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -p -x
> /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u 503 -g 503 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
> 1275 ? S 0:00 qmail-lspawn |preline procmail
> 1276 ? S 0:00 qmail-rspawn
> 1277 ? S 0:00 qmail-clean
>
> I first suspected of identd, because at first I had it enabled, and when
> the server would receive a message, it would launch a number of
> in.identd processes that when killed (manually by me), it'd get the
> messages preprocessed and delivered, but then I did disable identd and
> same thing happened but without the identd processes - the messages
> would simply sit there.
>
> I then thought of dns problems (??), looking for something that was
> perhaps slowing it all down - but I just can't nail it, and as far as
> the messages sit there, nothing is logged that'd give me a clue what's
> wrong.
>
> Could anyone think of something that'd be causing this problem?
>
> Thanks!
