At 9:59 AM -0500 3/1/06, Lisa Casey wrote:
Hi,
I had a mail server crash on Monday of this week so I hurriedly set up
another FreeBSD box I have to accept email in place of the crashed machine.
The new box already had Sendmail installed but didn't have a POP3 server so
I installed Qpopper 4.0.5 from the ports.
I've been using Qpopper for several years now on various machines, I have
another mail server now with Qpopper 4.0.4 currently on it.
The current version is 4.0.8. Note that there was a fix in 4.0.6
that might resolve the problem with pop locks you were having:
Worked around problem on some systems causing SIGALRM to be masked,
leaving hung pop processes which should have timed out waiting
for a command from the client.
So I'd suggest upgrading to 4.0.8.
In the past, I've had occasional problems with pop lock files that, for one
reason or another, didn't want to go away. And of course, when a customer
attempts to pop mail while a pop lock is present for his mailbox the
customer gets a "password error" on his end and on our end I get logged the
message "Is another session active?". This is just the way it's always
worked and it's my understanding that this is how it's supposed to work
:-)
No, it's not supposed to work that way. The Qpopper process serving
a user is supposed to notice when the user goes away, and clean up
afterwards, just as if the client entered QUIT. Anything else is a
problem and needs to be fixed.
That's why I'm perplexed at what I see on this new box I set up on Monday.
Pop locks are staying around, but they are NOT preventing anyone from being
able to pop their mail. There are some pop locks on this machine now from
Monday, yet these customers are happily popping their mail today.
Why is this? I must of overlooked something perhaps in my haste to get this
setup, but it's been awhile since I've set up a new Qpopper and I don't know
what I've overlooked.
Are they lock files or temp drops?
There is an option you can set in ./configure and in your config file
to keep the temp drop files around, so you can see when a user last
checked mail. Perhaps this is set.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
This is not to say that programming in, say, C++ takes a
super human effort. What I mean is that it makes sense to
develop tools that lessen the effort and increase the chance
for success. C was a step in that direction....
First there was ALGOL... this was a big step in the right
direction, then CPL which was supposed to be practical ALGOL,
was a slight step backwards. BCPL which was Basic CPL was
another step backwards. Then came B, a big step backwards (it
took the Basic and dropped the CPL), and C was a small step
forwards over this. I think in all this C had by the time it
came around lost the plot.
The plot that it really found, which was more by accident than
intention was cross platform development, but that would have
been in ALGOL anyway. C did not prove that OSs could be
written in HLLs: that belonged already to ALGOL on the B5000
(~1964), and this OS survives today as still much better,
fully featured and robust than Unix or any other OS for that
matter.
As C.A.R Hoare said, Algol was a great improvement on most of
its successors.
--from Usenet post by Ian Joyner,
<http://www.mri.mq.edu.au/people/ian.html>
