[Dbmail] OT: DBMail Administrator (DBMA) Performance Fix
I have been using DBMA to administer DBMail v2.2.10 On the home page of DBMA web interface, it displays only the top part of the page. I discovered the issue was due to a slow query in MySQL, after checking the slow-query-log in MySQL. The slow query is: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks; Running this slow query took 138 seconds (2 min 18.09 sec) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks; +--+ | COUNT(*) | +--+ | 262788 | +--+ 1 row in set (2 min 18.09 sec) After optimizing the SQL, it took 0.27 seconds. SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks use index(physmessage_id_index); +--+ | COUNT(*) | +--+ | 262796 | +--+ 1 row in set (0.27 sec) The diff below fix this performance issue for DBMA.cgi 6109c6109 $dbh-prepare(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM $dbmail_messageblks_table use index(physmessage_id_index)); --- $dbh-prepare(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM $dbmail_messageblks_table); HTH other users of DBMA. BTW, I posted this here because I can't find the forum/mailing list for DBMA. And what's the best admin interface for DBMail? -- Regards, Wallace ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: [Dbmail] OT: DBMail Administrator (DBMA) Performance Fix
Michael Monnerie wrote: The question is: Why is MySQL so stupid not to use the index? That should be done automatically by the DBMS, that's its job. I would oppose against changing the query just because MySQL has a bug. Maybe you use a version that's known to be instable? I am using MySQL v5.0.77 MySQL IS using PRIMARY index for the slow query. However, after reading comment 19 at: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/12/01/count-for-innodb-tables/ I got the idea to use another index for the COUNT. Any MySQL experts can explain this performance gap? SHOW CREATE TABLE dbmail_messageblks\G *** 1. row *** Table: dbmail_messageblks Create Table: CREATE TABLE `dbmail_messageblks` ( `messageblk_idnr` bigint(21) NOT NULL auto_increment, `physmessage_id` bigint(21) NOT NULL default '0', `messageblk` longblob NOT NULL, `blocksize` bigint(21) NOT NULL default '0', `is_header` tinyint(1) NOT NULL default '0', PRIMARY KEY (`messageblk_idnr`), KEY `physmessage_id_index` (`physmessage_id`), KEY `physmessage_id_is_header_index` (`physmessage_id`,`is_header`), CONSTRAINT `dbmail_messageblks_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`physmessage_id`) REFERENCES `dbmail_physmessage` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=602519 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 1 row in set (0.00 sec) EXPLAIN SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks\G *** 1. row *** id: 1 select_type: SIMPLE table: dbmail_messageblks type: index possible_keys: NULL key: PRIMARY key_len: 8 ref: NULL rows: 1930308 Extra: Using index 1 row in set (0.00 sec) EXPLAIN SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks use index(physmessage_id_index)\G *** 1. row *** id: 1 select_type: SIMPLE table: dbmail_messageblks type: index possible_keys: NULL key: physmessage_id_index key_len: 8 ref: NULL rows: 1930310 Extra: Using index 1 row in set (0.00 sec) -- Regards, Wallace ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: [Dbmail] OT: DBMail Administrator (DBMA) Performance Fix
Wallace Tan wrote: I am using MySQL v5.0.77 MySQL IS using PRIMARY index for the slow query. However, after reading comment 19 at: http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2006/12/01/count-for-innodb-tables/ I got the idea to use another index for the COUNT. Any MySQL experts can explain this performance gap? From http://capttofu.livejournal.com/12570.html InnoDB stores data in primary key order. If you don't specify a primary key, innodb creates one internally. InnoDB uses a clustered index, which means every index is stored with the primary key -- so be careful when making primary keys on InnoDB tables that are long. Clustered indexes give good performance for writes as well as selecting data by index. They are _slow_ with count(*) because: * InnoDB doesn't maintain # rows in the storage engine * Clustered indexes are slow when you perform count(*) because it is a count across the primary key, that operation has to traverse each index and data node. The way to get around this is to use select count(1) from t1; Or select count(some other indexed column) from t1; -- Regards, Wallace M:94500905 ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: [Dbmail] OT: DBMail Administrator (DBMA) Performance Fix
Michael Monnerie wrote: On Freitag 03 April 2009 Wallace Tan wrote: select count(1) from t1; That would have been my next question. I've spoken once to Paul, because dbmail uses lots of count(*), but PostgreSQL optimizes this out. Now it seems MySQL would have a performance boost using count(1). Could you please try: 1) first, SELECT COUNT(1) FROM dbmail_messageblks; and afterwards 2) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks; The order is important: After the first select(), the table will be cached, so the 2nd query will be faster. That, BTW, is part of the explanation why your 2nd query was much faster than the 1st. Still, count(1) should be faster than count(*) I would expect from the thread you posted. I do not have a MySQL db with enough data to test around. We're using PostgreSQL because things like that happen to exist in MySQL since years, and I don't need a DBMS where I have to think for it. I wonder why the devs don't manage to work around those problems. But no flames please, everybody should use what they prefer. mfg zmi In MySQL (using InnoDB engine) there is no difference for between COUNT(*) or COUNT(1) because it is 'optimized' to use the PRIMARY index. The InnoDB PRIMARY key is a clustered index. See previous post. If I understand this correctly, the PRIMARY key (clustered index) is THE problem. So the only viable solution is to force the query to use a non-clustered index. SELECT COUNT(1) FROM dbmail_messageblks; +--+ | COUNT(1) | +--+ | 263339 | +--+ 1 row in set (2 min 30.44 sec) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks; +--+ | COUNT(*) | +--+ | 263357 | +--+ 1 row in set (2 min 25.91 sec) EXPLAIN EXTENDED SELECT COUNT(1) FROM dbmail_messageblks\G *** 1. row *** id: 1 select_type: SIMPLE table: dbmail_messageblks type: index possible_keys: NULL key: PRIMARY key_len: 8 ref: NULL rows: 6574840 Extra: Using index EXPLAIN EXTENDED SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks\G *** 1. row *** id: 1 select_type: SIMPLE table: dbmail_messageblks type: index possible_keys: NULL key: PRIMARY key_len: 8 ref: NULL rows: 6574840 Extra: Using index -- Regards, Wallace M:94500905 ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: [Dbmail] OT: DBMail Administrator (DBMA) Performance Fix
Michael Monnerie wrote: On Freitag 03 April 2009 Wallace Tan wrote: select count(1) from t1; That would have been my next question. I've spoken once to Paul, because dbmail uses lots of count(*), but PostgreSQL optimizes this out. Now it seems MySQL would have a performance boost using count(1). Could you please try: 1) first, SELECT COUNT(1) FROM dbmail_messageblks; and afterwards 2) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbmail_messageblks; The order is important: After the first select(), the table will be cached, so the 2nd query will be faster. That, BTW, is part of the explanation why your 2nd query was much faster than the 1st. Still, count(1) should be faster than count(*) I would expect from the thread you posted. I do not have a MySQL db with enough data to test around. We're using PostgreSQL because things like that happen to exist in MySQL since years, and I don't need a DBMS where I have to think for it. I wonder why the devs don't manage to work around those problems. But no flames please, everybody should use what they prefer. mfg zmi What the performance like for the same query using PostgreSQL? I would consider PostgreSQL for my DBMail store. Thanks! -- Regards, Wallace ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: [Dbmail] Message Body truncated before line starting with From
Hi Paul, Sorry, I failed to mention that I have upgraded from v2.2.5 to v2.2.7 on my first post. I thought it could be the problem with the latest version, so I downgraded from v2.2.7 back to v2.2.5. The other reason is, I had to restart dbmail-imapd (v2.2.7) process a few times due to IMAP connection problems. I have 15 users using IMAP from Thunderbird and MS-Outlook 2003. Should I re-configure v2.2.5 and make install again? Or should I use v2.2.7 ? upgraded from v2.2.5 to v2.2.7 -- cd /download/dbmail/ wget http://www.dbmail.org/download/2.2/dbmail-2.2.7.tar.gz tar xzvf dbmail-2.2.7.tar.gz cd /download/dbmail/dbmail-2.2.7/ ./configure --with-mysql make all make install -- downgraded from v2.2.7 back to v2.2.5 -- cd /download/dbmail/dbmail-2.2.5/ make install -- Paul J Stevens wrote: Wallace, I see two possibly even three suspects. SpamAssassin is messing with your headers, and so is Exim. More important though is that you are using an old version of dbmail. The X-DBMail-PhysMessage-ID header isn't being added since well before 2.2.6 I pipe a message file to dbmail-smtp: cat /var/spool/exim/scan/1IzVt9-aF-5X/1IzVt9-aF-5X.eml | /usr/local/sbin/dbmail-smtp -d [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] dbmail-2.2.5]# cat /var/spool/exim/scan/1IzVt9-aF-5X/1IzVt9-aF-5X.eml From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 04 19:24:43 2007 X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=56337 helo=test9) by centos.wizwerx.com with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1IzVt9-aF-5X for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:24:43 +0800 From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test 9 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:24:40 +0800 This line works, however, From what I know, this doesn't work. -- Email message source: -- X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=56337 helo=test9) by centos.wizwerx.com with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1IzVt9-aF-5X for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:24:43 +0800 From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test 9 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:24:40 +0800 Return-Path: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-DBMail-PhysMessage-ID: 33563 This line works, however, -- ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: [Dbmail] Message Body truncated before line starting with From
I have re-installed v2.2.7 and test on both v2.2.5 and v2.2.7 using: cat email.eml | /usr/local/sbin/dbmail-smtp -d [EMAIL PROTECTED] Both versions truncates the message body with lines starting with From It works when there is a space before From, i.e. From -- NOT-WORKING: email.eml From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 04 19:52:17 2007 X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=49353 helo=test11) by centos.wizwerx.com with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1IzWJv-Ep-5f for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:52:17 +0800 From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test 11 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:52:16 +0800 This line works, however, From what I know, this line gets truncated This line gets truncated This other line get truncated too -- -- WORKING: email.eml From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 04 19:52:17 2007 X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=49353 helo=test11) by centos.wizwerx.com with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) id 1IzWJv-Ep-5f for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:52:17 +0800 From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test 11 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:52:16 +0800 This line works, however, From what I know, this line does not truncate ^The space before From This line does not truncated This other line does not truncated -- Paul J Stevens wrote: I'm not aware of *any* regressions between 2.2.5 and 2.2.7, only bugfixes, and some of those are significant. ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
Re: [Dbmail] Message Body truncated before line starting with From
Hi Paul,
You are correct, lines in the message body starting with From get truncated.
File: exim.conf
--
DBMAIL_ALIASES=SELECT alias FROM dbmail_aliases WHERE
alias='${quote_mysql:[EMAIL PROTECTED]' OR alias='@${quote_mysql:$domain}'
# ROUTER
dbmail_aliases:
driver = accept
condition = ${lookup mysql {DBMAIL_ALIASES}}
transport = dbmail_transport
# TRANSPORT
dbmail_transport:
driver = pipe
command = /usr/local/sbin/dbmail-smtp -d [EMAIL PROTECTED]
return_fail_output
--
SMTP session:
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1).
Escape character is '^]'.
220 centos.wizwerx.com ESMTP Exim 4.63 Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:33:18 +0800
HELO test5
250 centos.wizwerx.com Hello test5 [127.0.0.1]
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 OK
RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 Accepted
DATA
354 Enter message, ending with . on a line by itself
From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test 5
From what I know, this doesn't work.
.
250 OK id=1IzCNF-0003V5-LV
--
Email message source:
--
Received: from exim by centos.wizwerx.com
with spam-scanned (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id 1IzCPB-0004Hd-Ec for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:36:17 +0800
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=52935 helo=test5) by centos.wizwerx.com
with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id 1IzCNF-0003V5-LV for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:36:17 +0800
From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test 5
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:36:07 +0800
X-FILTER-DSPAM: by centos.wizwerx.com on Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:36:17 +0800
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Mon Dec 3 22:36:17 2007
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.8034
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.
X-DSPAM-Signature: 47541461164719080218370
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27,
Received*wally+pacific.net.sg), 0.00872,
From*wally+pacific.net.sg, 0.01000,
To*wallace+wallace, 0.01000,
From+what, 0.06879,
Received*from+wally, 0.10375,
Subject*Test, 0.16496,
Received*[127.0.0.1], 0.18275,
Received*from+[127.0.0.1], 0.18275,
Received*pacific.net.sg), 0.18717,
From*wally, 0.20615,
From*pacific.net.sg, 0.21849,
To*wallace, 0.24173,
Date*0800, 0.25544,
From, 0.25600,
X-FILTER-DSPAM*Mon+03, 0.26147,
I+know, 0.26406,
Received*Mon+03, 0.26616,
X-FILTER-DSPAM*36+17, 0.26972,
Date*07+0800, 0.27154,
this, 0.27181,
what+I, 0.27365,
Received*wizwerx.com+Mon, 0.27519,
Message-Id*centos.wizwerx.com, 0.27544,
X-FILTER-DSPAM*17+0800, 0.27597,
Date*Mon, 0.27600,
Received*Mon, 0.27626,
X-FILTER-DSPAM*03, 0.27628
Return-Path: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-DBMail-PhysMessage-ID: 33084
--
Paul J Stevens wrote:
I think what Wallace meant was that his message get truncated when they
have a bodyline that starts with From
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: blah
From where I stand this should
work
--
Wallace: please explain how you hooked up exim and dbmail. This problem
hasn't been reported since before dbmail 2.0 (it was a problem for early
versions of dbmail-lmtpd, iirc).
Aleksander Kamenik wrote:
Wallace Tan wrote:
I have installed dbmail-2.2.7 with exim 4.63
Message body is truncated before line starting with From
I can receive emails except for emails with message body starting
with From
This truncates the entire message body.
I don't get you here. The line with From has to be the first one and
the message body before this line is then truncated? Doesn't make sense.
Anyone have this problem?
Is this a bug or is it a configuration setting that I have missed.
I did some testing, and when inserting the message directly to postfix
via smtp, I noticed that the From line is treated as a header. The
rest of the body is still there. And this only works if I don't insert
any real headers too. Two examples.
mail:~ # telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 krediidiinfo.ee ESMTP Postfix
HELO test
250 krediidiinfo.ee
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 Ok
RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 Ok
DATA
354 End data with CRLF.CRLF
From me to you
some text
..
250 Ok: queued as D6797F06E
QUIT
221 Bye
Connection closed by foreign host.
Results in:
---
Received: from test (localhost [127.0.0.1])by krediidiinfo.ee
(Postfix)
with SMTP id D6797F06Efor [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:12:57 +0200 (EET)
X-Mailbox-Line: From me to you
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:12:57 +0200 (EET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
some text
---
And this:
mail:~ # telnet localhost 25
Re: [Dbmail] Message Body truncated before line starting with From
1. I have disable dspam routers, I am only using SpamAssassin.
2. Also, I have set no_mbox_unspool which saves spooled copies of messages
after acl_smtp_data ACL has finished running.
3. The message is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. The spooled copy of message is piped to dbmail-smtp to another mailbox
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
cat /var/spool/exim/scan/1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox/1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox.eml |
/usr/local/sbin/dbmail-smtp -d [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- (2)
# 2. Exim - acl_smtp_data ACL - SpamAssassin
warnhosts = 127.0.0.1
condition = ${if {$spam_score_int}{25} {1}}
add_header = X-Spam-Score: $spam_score ($spam_bar)\n\
X-Spam-Report: $spam_report
control = no_mbox_unspool
--
SMTP session:
-- (3)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# telnet localhost 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1).
Escape character is '^]'.
220 centos.wizwerx.com ESMTP Exim 4.63 Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:25:27 +0800
HELO test8
250 centos.wizwerx.com Hello test8 [127.0.0.1]
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 OK
RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 Accepted
DATA
354 Enter message, ending with . on a line by itself
From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test 8
This line works, however,
From what I know, this doesn't work.
.
250 OK id=1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox
QUIT
221 centos.wizwerx.com closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
--
Exim spooled copy of message:
-- (4)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat
/var/spool/exim/scan/1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox/1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox.eml
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 04 13:26:09 2007
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=57628 helo=test8)
by centos.wizwerx.com with smtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id 1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:26:09 +0800
From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test 8
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:26:02 +0800
This line works, however,
From what I know, this doesn't work.
--
Email message source in [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailbox:
-- (3)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=57628 helo=test8) by centos.wizwerx.com
with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id 1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:26:14 +0800
From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test 8
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:26:02 +0800
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system
centos.wizwerx.com, has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: This line works, however, From what I know, this
doesn't
work.
[...]
Content analysis details: (-1.4 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
--
--
-1.4 ALL_TRUSTEDPassed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
Return-Path: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-DBMail-PhysMessage-ID: 33395
This line works, however,
--
Email message source in [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailbox:
-- (4)
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=57628 helo=test8) by centos.wizwerx.com
with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
id 1IzQI3-0004uD-Ox for [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:26:09 +0800
From: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test 8
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:26:02 +0800
Return-Path: Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-DBMail-PhysMessage-ID: 33396
This line works, however,
--
Aleksander Kamenik wrote:
I tried exactly the same SMTP session as you (except MAIL FROM and RCPT
TO). Worked for me.
In the dspam headers you can see I+know, 0. 26406, is in, so at least
we know exim delivers the message to dspam successfully.
Wallace Tan wrote:
command = /usr/local/sbin/dbmail-smtp -d [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You could take the message with headers and everything and try to feed
it to dbmail-smtp the same way exim does, then you'll know for sure
whether the bug is with dbmail or exim/dspam.
cat messagefile | /usr/local/sbin/dbmail-smtp -d [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
___
DBmail mailing list
DBmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
[Dbmail] Message Body truncated before line starting with From
I have installed dbmail-2.2.7 with exim 4.63 Message body is truncated before line starting with From I can receive emails except for emails with message body starting with From This truncates the entire message body. Anyone have this problem? Is this a bug or is it a configuration setting that I have missed. Thanks! Regards, Wallace ___ DBmail mailing list DBmail@dbmail.org https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
