Re: Sendmail vs. ?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 07:27:52PM -0700, Duane Powers wrote: > Fantastic advice, thanks. one thing i forgot to mention: if there's any mail left in the sendmail queue after the conversion, then postfix won't know about it and won't be able to deliver it. before you uninstall sendmail, shut it down so that it is no longer accepting incoming mail. then flush the mail queue so that no outbound mail gets lost in the transition. this may require that you have another machine set up as a smart host, just to get all outbound mail onto another machine. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: AT&T public router
Revisiting traceroute.org, I see that they have a whole list of route servers. :) At 01:09 PM 6/27/01 +0200, Russell Coker wrote: >Here's a machine that used to provide such a service, not sure if it >still does: > >route-views.oregon-ix.net ---==--- ___/``\___ 0100 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 07:27:52PM -0700, Duane Powers wrote: > Fantastic advice, thanks. one thing i forgot to mention: if there's any mail left in the sendmail queue after the conversion, then postfix won't know about it and won't be able to deliver it. before you uninstall sendmail, shut it down so that it is no longer accepting incoming mail. then flush the mail queue so that no outbound mail gets lost in the transition. this may require that you have another machine set up as a smart host, just to get all outbound mail onto another machine. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:48:19AM -0700, Duane Powers wrote: > security conscious > virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP > spam control > ease of configuration > > I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the > cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday postfix is very good at all four of your criteria. it's also very easy to migrate to postfix from sendmail - it's designed to be mostly backwards compatible - e.g. you can use the same aliases, transports, virtuser etc files. the formats of those files are either the same, or backwards compatible - e.g. postfix's virtual table allows multiple addresses on the RHS of the table so you can have a message delivered to two or more mailboxes. with sendmail if you wanted to do that, you had to create an alias with two or more addresses and then make the virtuser table entry point to the alias. a useful feature of postfix while you're converting a system from sendmail is the "softbounce = yes" feature. that causes all mail that would bounce to just be rejected with a "4xx try again later" code. the following advice applies if you're running a mail server for dozens or more people. if it's just a home mail server handling your own personal mail you may prefer to do it the quick and dirty way and risk bouncing a few messages... whatever MTA you go to, the best thing to do is research and experiment first. get another box (an old pentium or 486 will do), install your new MTA on it and get a feel for how it works. then trash it and install sendmail on the same box and configure it in a similar manner to your main server. test that it works. then convert it to your new MTA and test that it works. if all goes well, you'll have had a successful conversion as practice. now write out a TODO list of each step you have to do in the conversion. e.g. - install postfix - shutdown postfix so that it's not accepting mail while i'm configuring it - configure /etc/postfix/main.cf - [ list of specific features you need enabled/disabled ] - softbounce = yes - copy /etc/mail/aliases to /etc/aliases. run newaliases - copy /etc/mail/transport to /etc/postfix/transport. edit if required. run postmap transport - copy /etc/mail/virtuser to /etc/postfix/virtual. edit as required. run postmap virtual ...etc. if you plan out exactly what you are going to do then there is very little chance of anything going wrong. finally, begin the migration of your real mail server. tick off each step as you do it. take it slow, and don't panic. the slow methodical approach is the best way here. monitor the log files when you're done, and shutdown the MTA (e.g. run /etc/init.d/postfix stop) at the first sign of trouble so that you can investigate and fix it quickly. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: Qmail - huge performance increase
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:03:11PM +0200, Tomasz Papszun wrote: > "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26 > seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes! > > This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is > needed to colour a listing) needs more time to gather this information. > I don't know what difference would be for reiserfs or xfs filesystems. yep. ls -l also takes a long time in large directories because it has to stat each file to get the info about it. i never bothered timing it, but in a directory with thousands of files it is significantly faster to run this: ls -1S | head -30 | xargs ls -lS ^ -- numeral 1, not letter l. than this: ls -lS | head -30 btw, in case you're wondering, i used to use commands like that to find the largest 30 files in /var/spool/mail craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:48:19AM -0700, Duane Powers wrote: > security conscious > virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP > spam control > ease of configuration > > I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the > cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday postfix is very good at all four of your criteria. it's also very easy to migrate to postfix from sendmail - it's designed to be mostly backwards compatible - e.g. you can use the same aliases, transports, virtuser etc files. the formats of those files are either the same, or backwards compatible - e.g. postfix's virtual table allows multiple addresses on the RHS of the table so you can have a message delivered to two or more mailboxes. with sendmail if you wanted to do that, you had to create an alias with two or more addresses and then make the virtuser table entry point to the alias. a useful feature of postfix while you're converting a system from sendmail is the "softbounce = yes" feature. that causes all mail that would bounce to just be rejected with a "4xx try again later" code. the following advice applies if you're running a mail server for dozens or more people. if it's just a home mail server handling your own personal mail you may prefer to do it the quick and dirty way and risk bouncing a few messages... whatever MTA you go to, the best thing to do is research and experiment first. get another box (an old pentium or 486 will do), install your new MTA on it and get a feel for how it works. then trash it and install sendmail on the same box and configure it in a similar manner to your main server. test that it works. then convert it to your new MTA and test that it works. if all goes well, you'll have had a successful conversion as practice. now write out a TODO list of each step you have to do in the conversion. e.g. - install postfix - shutdown postfix so that it's not accepting mail while i'm configuring it - configure /etc/postfix/main.cf - [ list of specific features you need enabled/disabled ] - softbounce = yes - copy /etc/mail/aliases to /etc/aliases. run newaliases - copy /etc/mail/transport to /etc/postfix/transport. edit if required. run postmap transport - copy /etc/mail/virtuser to /etc/postfix/virtual. edit as required. run postmap virtual ...etc. if you plan out exactly what you are going to do then there is very little chance of anything going wrong. finally, begin the migration of your real mail server. tick off each step as you do it. take it slow, and don't panic. the slow methodical approach is the best way here. monitor the log files when you're done, and shutdown the MTA (e.g. run /etc/init.d/postfix stop) at the first sign of trouble so that you can investigate and fix it quickly. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Qmail - huge performance increase
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:03:11PM +0200, Tomasz Papszun wrote: > "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26 > seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes! > > This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is > needed to colour a listing) needs more time to gather this information. > I don't know what difference would be for reiserfs or xfs filesystems. yep. ls -l also takes a long time in large directories because it has to stat each file to get the info about it. i never bothered timing it, but in a directory with thousands of files it is significantly faster to run this: ls -1S | head -30 | xargs ls -lS ^ -- numeral 1, not letter l. than this: ls -lS | head -30 btw, in case you're wondering, i used to use commands like that to find the largest 30 files in /var/spool/mail craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
All other issues aside ... some might find the qmail license to be quite onerous. -- Jean-Paul Stewart Senior Systems Administrator CarbonMedia, Inc. 114 East 25th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212.253.7180 Fax: 212.253.8467 http://www.carbonmedia.com/
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
Nick Jennings wrote: It seems that you've had little experience with anything but sendmail, so you're opinion may be rather biased. I have used sendmail, exim, postfix and qmail and I think that exim and postfix are very good, high performance yet easily configurable and maintainable mail servers. Qmail I here gives better performance, but it's a hassle to maintain. I migrated from sendmail to exim and it was extremely easy (thanks to exim's amble documentation). Here comes the holy war Seriously though, I use qmail+vpopmail and its easy, fast, secure and fun. The only pain is on instalation. Aside from that it could be a little of a pain to migrate your accounts but a little scripting and kazam, it will be done. Its real easy to administer and has a bunch of quota options per domain and stuff like that. Everyone hates its /var/qmail structure and i am not the exception but i think its well worth it when combined with vpopmail's structure: /home/vpopmail/domains/*/users/* I love the thing and i think it has earned its reputation for being a very secure server...although we all know that its never the software's fault. G'Luck Alex
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:18:41PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > > I guess my thoughts are: > 1) Let me know what sendmail can do to help > 2) If you want to switch, check to see if you've got anything tricky > in your rules - you *WILL* loose functionality with any other MTA > (turing complete control language). If you've a fairly genereric > sendmail.mc - you're probably ok This is not true, Exim allows much more flexibility with configuration, sendmail cannot handle seperate virtual domains (i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the same as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) which is very usefull when running, for instance, web-based email services, and you don't want the usernames for it to conflict with your shell accounts on another domain, same server. > 3) I've heard (no experience) that Postfix is probably the easiest migration > It seems that you've had little experience with anything but sendmail, so you're opinion may be rather biased. I have used sendmail, exim, postfix and qmail and I think that exim and postfix are very good, high performance yet easily configurable and maintainable mail servers. Qmail I here gives better performance, but it's a hassle to maintain. I migrated from sendmail to exim and it was extremely easy (thanks to exim's amble documentation). -- Nick Jennings
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
All other issues aside ... some might find the qmail license to be quite onerous. -- Jean-Paul Stewart Senior Systems Administrator CarbonMedia, Inc. 114 East 25th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212.253.7180 Fax: 212.253.8467 http://www.carbonmedia.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
Nick Jennings wrote: > It seems that you've had little experience with anything but sendmail, > so you're opinion may be rather biased. > > I have used sendmail, exim, postfix and qmail and I think that exim and > postfix are very good, high performance yet easily configurable and > maintainable mail servers. Qmail I here gives better performance, but > it's a hassle to maintain. > > I migrated from sendmail to exim and it was extremely easy (thanks to > exim's amble documentation). > Here comes the holy war Seriously though, I use qmail+vpopmail and its easy, fast, secure and fun. The only pain is on instalation. Aside from that it could be a little of a pain to migrate your accounts but a little scripting and kazam, it will be done. Its real easy to administer and has a bunch of quota options per domain and stuff like that. Everyone hates its /var/qmail structure and i am not the exception but i think its well worth it when combined with vpopmail's structure: /home/vpopmail/domains/*/users/* I love the thing and i think it has earned its reputation for being a very secure server...although we all know that its never the software's fault. G'Luck Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 01:18:41PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > > I guess my thoughts are: > 1) Let me know what sendmail can do to help > 2) If you want to switch, check to see if you've got anything tricky > in your rules - you *WILL* loose functionality with any other MTA > (turing complete control language). If you've a fairly genereric > sendmail.mc - you're probably ok This is not true, Exim allows much more flexibility with configuration, sendmail cannot handle seperate virtual domains (i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the same as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) which is very usefull when running, for instance, web-based email services, and you don't want the usernames for it to conflict with your shell accounts on another domain, same server. > 3) I've heard (no experience) that Postfix is probably the easiest migration > It seems that you've had little experience with anything but sendmail, so you're opinion may be rather biased. I have used sendmail, exim, postfix and qmail and I think that exim and postfix are very good, high performance yet easily configurable and maintainable mail servers. Qmail I here gives better performance, but it's a hassle to maintain. I migrated from sendmail to exim and it was extremely easy (thanks to exim's amble documentation). -- Nick Jennings -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
Check out mail-abuse.org. They are the ones who actually run the RBL. vix.com no longer mirrors the RBL. According to the mail-abuse web page vix.com stopped on June 15th. I didn't read why..I would have been very sad to see the RBL go away. You scared me ;) Greg On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Duane Powers wrote: > Greg Rowe wrote: > > > What do you mean departure of the rbl? blackhole.mail-abuse.org still > > works? > > > I read a thread on one of the debian lists a couple weeks ago about one > of the spam databases going away... a couple of days later, I started > getting lots of this > > daemon.log.0:Jun 21 22:18:37 ns1 named[9282]: bad referral (vix.com !< > rbl.maps.vix.com) from [204.152.184.64].53 > > Then if you go to www.orbs.org you get this: > > Due to circumstances beyond our control, the ORBS website is no longer > available. > > > > Perhaps I jumped to a wrong conclusion, or drew a link between orbs and > the rbl that doesn't exist... > > > > > I have been researching MTAs for a little while trying to figure out what > > I want to use instead of sendmail. I was looking for maildir delivery, > > ease of configuration, support for virtual hosting, and virtual accounts. > > Exim does all of that for me quite well. Qmail does too but I hate that > > whole /var/qmail directory structure. It isn't GPL either... Exim also > > has TONS of documentation. I briefly looked at PostFix and it seems like > > a viable alternative as well but has less docs than exim. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > Duane Powers > uberLAN.net > -- Greg Rowe Paranoia is a virtue. http://www.therowes.net
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
Greg Rowe wrote: What do you mean departure of the rbl? blackhole.mail-abuse.org still works? I read a thread on one of the debian lists a couple weeks ago about one of the spam databases going away... a couple of days later, I started getting lots of this daemon.log.0:Jun 21 22:18:37 ns1 named[9282]: bad referral (vix.com !< rbl.maps.vix.com) from [204.152.184.64].53 Then if you go to www.orbs.org you get this: Due to circumstances beyond our control, the ORBS website is no longer available. Perhaps I jumped to a wrong conclusion, or drew a link between orbs and the rbl that doesn't exist... I have been researching MTAs for a little while trying to figure out what I want to use instead of sendmail. I was looking for maildir delivery, ease of configuration, support for virtual hosting, and virtual accounts. Exim does all of that for me quite well. Qmail does too but I hate that whole /var/qmail directory structure. It isn't GPL either... Exim also has TONS of documentation. I briefly looked at PostFix and it seems like a viable alternative as well but has less docs than exim. Greg Duane Powers uberLAN.net
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
What do you mean departure of the rbl? blackhole.mail-abuse.org still works? I have been researching MTAs for a little while trying to figure out what I want to use instead of sendmail. I was looking for maildir delivery, ease of configuration, support for virtual hosting, and virtual accounts. Exim does all of that for me quite well. Qmail does too but I hate that whole /var/qmail directory structure. It isn't GPL either... Exim also has TONS of documentation. I briefly looked at PostFix and it seems like a viable alternative as well but has less docs than exim. Greg On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Duane Powers wrote: > Hey all, > > I've been using sendmail 8.11 for the last couple of years, and while > not real easy to configure, it has fit my purposes well. I was using the > rbl to cut down on unwanted spam for my users, but with the departure of > the rbl, I'm finding my server passing more spam to my users, I may be > looking in the wrong place, but the only solutions I've found, like > keeping my own spammer db, would require too much of a time commmitment > from me. I've read through several holy wars on exim,qmail, postfix and > sendmail, and without starting another one, I'd like to get some input > on what the list is using. Here are my basic requirments: > > security conscious > virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP > spam control > ease of configuration > > I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the > cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday > > > Duane Powers > uberLAN.Net > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Greg Rowe Paranoia is a virtue. http://www.therowes.net
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
DP> Hey all, DP> I've been using sendmail 8.11 for the last couple of years, and while DP> not real easy to configure, it has fit my purposes well. I was using DP> the rbl to cut down on unwanted spam for my users, but with the DP> departure of the rbl, I'm finding my server passing more spam to my DP> users, I may be looking in the wrong place, but the only solutions DP> I've found, like keeping my own spammer db, would require too much of DP> a time commmitment from me. I've read through several holy wars on DP> exim,qmail, postfix and sendmail, and without starting another one, DP> I'd like to get some input on what the list is using. Here are my DP> basic requirments: DP> security conscious DP> virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP DP> spam control DP> ease of configuration DP> I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the DP> cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday Postfix should satisfy your requirements. 1) security conscious IMHO Postfix is very secure 2) virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP In latests versions of Postfix you can use transport named 'virtual' which allows to create easily virtual mailboxes. And Postfix can lookup users in LDAP database. 3) spam control never used it but I've seen in Postfix docs mention about it. If you have installed postfix check /usr/share/doc/postfix/html/uce.html 4) ease of configuration IMHO Postfix satisfies this requirement also. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)| | GnuPG 1024D/323BDEE6 D7F7 561E 4C1D 8A15 8E80 E4AE BE1A 53EB 323B DEE6 | | AGAVA Software Company (http://www.agava.com/) | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sendmail vs. ?
Hey all, I've been using sendmail 8.11 for the last couple of years, and while not real easy to configure, it has fit my purposes well. I was using the rbl to cut down on unwanted spam for my users, but with the departure of the rbl, I'm finding my server passing more spam to my users, I may be looking in the wrong place, but the only solutions I've found, like keeping my own spammer db, would require too much of a time commmitment from me. I've read through several holy wars on exim,qmail, postfix and sendmail, and without starting another one, I'd like to get some input on what the list is using. Here are my basic requirments: security conscious virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP spam control ease of configuration I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday Duane Powers uberLAN.Net
Re: Qmail - huge performance increase
And on an Ultra-60 running Solaris 7 w/UFS: bash-2.04$ time /bin/ls | wc 63975 63975 1971245 real0m2.213s user0m1.160s sys 0m0.890s bash-2.04$ time ls | wc 63975 63975 1971253 real2m19.965s user0m1.490s sys 0m16.340s bash-2.04$ Sped it up "just a little bit" :-) On Wednesday 27 June 2001 07:03, Tomasz Papszun wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 at 13:25:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > > SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20 > > > something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so > > > files. Doing "ls" now is far speedier. > > > [...] > > > > this is actually a well-known limitation of ext2fs and similar > > file-systems - as soon as you get more than a thousand or so files in a > > directory, performance takes a nosedive. > > BTW, a tip: if you've got "ls" aliased (for instance as > 'ls --color=auto -F') then you can shorten this long execution of "ls". > Just issue "/bin/ls" instead of "ls". The difference is very big. It can > be as 1:200 (yeah!). I've just done a comparison in a directory > with > 33000 files. > > "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26 > seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes! > > This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is > needed to colour a listing) needs more time to gather this information. > I don't know what difference would be for reiserfs or xfs filesystems. > > Hope it helps a little :-) . -- "To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it." [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
Check out mail-abuse.org. They are the ones who actually run the RBL. vix.com no longer mirrors the RBL. According to the mail-abuse web page vix.com stopped on June 15th. I didn't read why..I would have been very sad to see the RBL go away. You scared me ;) Greg On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Duane Powers wrote: > Greg Rowe wrote: > > > What do you mean departure of the rbl? blackhole.mail-abuse.org still > > works? > > > I read a thread on one of the debian lists a couple weeks ago about one > of the spam databases going away... a couple of days later, I started > getting lots of this > > daemon.log.0:Jun 21 22:18:37 ns1 named[9282]: bad referral (vix.com !< > rbl.maps.vix.com) from [204.152.184.64].53 > > Then if you go to www.orbs.org you get this: > > Due to circumstances beyond our control, the ORBS website is no longer available. > > > > Perhaps I jumped to a wrong conclusion, or drew a link between orbs and > the rbl that doesn't exist... > > > > > I have been researching MTAs for a little while trying to figure out what > > I want to use instead of sendmail. I was looking for maildir delivery, > > ease of configuration, support for virtual hosting, and virtual accounts. > > Exim does all of that for me quite well. Qmail does too but I hate that > > whole /var/qmail directory structure. It isn't GPL either... Exim also > > has TONS of documentation. I briefly looked at PostFix and it seems like > > a viable alternative as well but has less docs than exim. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > Duane Powers > uberLAN.net > -- Greg Rowe Paranoia is a virtue. http://www.therowes.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
Greg Rowe wrote: > What do you mean departure of the rbl? blackhole.mail-abuse.org still > works? I read a thread on one of the debian lists a couple weeks ago about one of the spam databases going away... a couple of days later, I started getting lots of this daemon.log.0:Jun 21 22:18:37 ns1 named[9282]: bad referral (vix.com !< rbl.maps.vix.com) from [204.152.184.64].53 Then if you go to www.orbs.org you get this: Due to circumstances beyond our control, the ORBS website is no longer available. Perhaps I jumped to a wrong conclusion, or drew a link between orbs and the rbl that doesn't exist... > I have been researching MTAs for a little while trying to figure out what > I want to use instead of sendmail. I was looking for maildir delivery, > ease of configuration, support for virtual hosting, and virtual accounts. > Exim does all of that for me quite well. Qmail does too but I hate that > whole /var/qmail directory structure. It isn't GPL either... Exim also > has TONS of documentation. I briefly looked at PostFix and it seems like > a viable alternative as well but has less docs than exim. > > Greg > Duane Powers uberLAN.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Qmail - huge performance increase
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 at 13:25:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20 > > something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so > > files. Doing "ls" now is far speedier. > > [...] > > this is actually a well-known limitation of ext2fs and similar > file-systems - as soon as you get more than a thousand or so files in a > directory, performance takes a nosedive. > BTW, a tip: if you've got "ls" aliased (for instance as 'ls --color=auto -F') then you can shorten this long execution of "ls". Just issue "/bin/ls" instead of "ls". The difference is very big. It can be as 1:200 (yeah!). I've just done a comparison in a directory with > 33000 files. "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26 seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes! This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is needed to colour a listing) needs more time to gather this information. I don't know what difference would be for reiserfs or xfs filesystems. Hope it helps a little :-) . -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros.
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
What do you mean departure of the rbl? blackhole.mail-abuse.org still works? I have been researching MTAs for a little while trying to figure out what I want to use instead of sendmail. I was looking for maildir delivery, ease of configuration, support for virtual hosting, and virtual accounts. Exim does all of that for me quite well. Qmail does too but I hate that whole /var/qmail directory structure. It isn't GPL either... Exim also has TONS of documentation. I briefly looked at PostFix and it seems like a viable alternative as well but has less docs than exim. Greg On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Duane Powers wrote: > Hey all, > > I've been using sendmail 8.11 for the last couple of years, and while > not real easy to configure, it has fit my purposes well. I was using the > rbl to cut down on unwanted spam for my users, but with the departure of > the rbl, I'm finding my server passing more spam to my users, I may be > looking in the wrong place, but the only solutions I've found, like > keeping my own spammer db, would require too much of a time commmitment > from me. I've read through several holy wars on exim,qmail, postfix and > sendmail, and without starting another one, I'd like to get some input > on what the list is using. Here are my basic requirments: > > security conscious > virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP > spam control > ease of configuration > > I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the > cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday > > > Duane Powers > uberLAN.Net > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Greg Rowe Paranoia is a virtue. http://www.therowes.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail vs. ?
DP> Hey all, DP> I've been using sendmail 8.11 for the last couple of years, and while DP> not real easy to configure, it has fit my purposes well. I was using DP> the rbl to cut down on unwanted spam for my users, but with the DP> departure of the rbl, I'm finding my server passing more spam to my DP> users, I may be looking in the wrong place, but the only solutions DP> I've found, like keeping my own spammer db, would require too much of DP> a time commmitment from me. I've read through several holy wars on DP> exim,qmail, postfix and sendmail, and without starting another one, DP> I'd like to get some input on what the list is using. Here are my DP> basic requirments: DP> security conscious DP> virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP DP> spam control DP> ease of configuration DP> I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the DP> cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday Postfix should satisfy your requirements. 1) security conscious IMHO Postfix is very secure 2) virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP In latests versions of Postfix you can use transport named 'virtual' which allows to create easily virtual mailboxes. And Postfix can lookup users in LDAP database. 3) spam control never used it but I've seen in Postfix docs mention about it. If you have installed postfix check /usr/share/doc/postfix/html/uce.html 4) ease of configuration IMHO Postfix satisfies this requirement also. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)| | GnuPG 1024D/323BDEE6 D7F7 561E 4C1D 8A15 8E80 E4AE BE1A 53EB 323B DEE6 | | AGAVA Software Company (http://www.agava.com/) | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendmail vs. ?
Hey all, I've been using sendmail 8.11 for the last couple of years, and while not real easy to configure, it has fit my purposes well. I was using the rbl to cut down on unwanted spam for my users, but with the departure of the rbl, I'm finding my server passing more spam to my users, I may be looking in the wrong place, but the only solutions I've found, like keeping my own spammer db, would require too much of a time commmitment from me. I've read through several holy wars on exim,qmail, postfix and sendmail, and without starting another one, I'd like to get some input on what the list is using. Here are my basic requirments: security conscious virtual email accounts, likely using LDAP spam control ease of configuration I"m kinda leaning toward postfix, but that's just because I like the cover of the book I saw at borders yesterday Duane Powers uberLAN.Net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AT&T public router
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 08:14, Chris Wagner wrote: > A while back, AT&T had a publicly accessible router for doing route > lookups and stuff like that. It supposedly knew about the whole world. > The special thing about this router was that you didn't need a user > name or password to log on with. It just gave you the IOS prompt. I > haven't been on this router for a long time and I can't remember the > exact name of it. It was something like ip-router.att.net or > route.world.att.net. Does anybody remember this thing and have the > host name? Thanks. Here's a machine that used to provide such a service, not sure if it still does: route-views.oregon-ix.net -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Qmail - huge performance increase
And on an Ultra-60 running Solaris 7 w/UFS: bash-2.04$ time /bin/ls | wc 63975 63975 1971245 real0m2.213s user0m1.160s sys 0m0.890s bash-2.04$ time ls | wc 63975 63975 1971253 real2m19.965s user0m1.490s sys 0m16.340s bash-2.04$ Sped it up "just a little bit" :-) On Wednesday 27 June 2001 07:03, Tomasz Papszun wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 at 13:25:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > > SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20 > > > something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so > > > files. Doing "ls" now is far speedier. > > > [...] > > > > this is actually a well-known limitation of ext2fs and similar > > file-systems - as soon as you get more than a thousand or so files in a > > directory, performance takes a nosedive. > > BTW, a tip: if you've got "ls" aliased (for instance as > 'ls --color=auto -F') then you can shorten this long execution of "ls". > Just issue "/bin/ls" instead of "ls". The difference is very big. It can > be as 1:200 (yeah!). I've just done a comparison in a directory > with > 33000 files. > > "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26 > seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes! > > This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is > needed to colour a listing) needs more time to gather this information. > I don't know what difference would be for reiserfs or xfs filesystems. > > Hope it helps a little :-) . -- "To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it." [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Qmail - huge performance increase
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 at 13:25:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20 > > something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so > > files. Doing "ls" now is far speedier. > > [...] > > this is actually a well-known limitation of ext2fs and similar > file-systems - as soon as you get more than a thousand or so files in a > directory, performance takes a nosedive. > BTW, a tip: if you've got "ls" aliased (for instance as 'ls --color=auto -F') then you can shorten this long execution of "ls". Just issue "/bin/ls" instead of "ls". The difference is very big. It can be as 1:200 (yeah!). I've just done a comparison in a directory with > 33000 files. "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26 seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes! This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is needed to colour a listing) needs more time to gather this information. I don't know what difference would be for reiserfs or xfs filesystems. Hope it helps a little :-) . -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AT&T public router
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 08:14, Chris Wagner wrote: > A while back, AT&T had a publicly accessible router for doing route > lookups and stuff like that. It supposedly knew about the whole world. > The special thing about this router was that you didn't need a user > name or password to log on with. It just gave you the IOS prompt. I > haven't been on this router for a long time and I can't remember the > exact name of it. It was something like ip-router.att.net or > route.world.att.net. Does anybody remember this thing and have the > host name? Thanks. Here's a machine that used to provide such a service, not sure if it still does: route-views.oregon-ix.net -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AT&T public router
> A while back, AT&T had a publicly accessible router for doing route lookups > and stuff like that. It supposedly knew about the whole world. The special > thing about this router was that you didn't need a user name or password to > log on with. It just gave you the IOS prompt. I haven't been on this > router for a long time and I can't remember the exact name of it. It was > something like ip-router.att.net or route.world.att.net. Does anybody > remember this thing and have the host name? Thanks. route-server.ip.att.net Matt.
Re: AT&T public router
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:14:41 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >A while back, AT&T had a publicly accessible router for doing route lookups >and stuff like that. It supposedly knew about the whole world. The special >thing about this router was that you didn't need a user name or password to >log on with. It just gave you the IOS prompt. I haven't been on this >router for a long time and I can't remember the exact name of it. It was >something like ip-router.att.net or route.world.att.net. Does anybody >remember this thing and have the host name? Thanks. Why not simply use one of the dozen´s publicly available looking glasses instead? www.traceroute.org cheers, &rw -- / Ing. Robert Waldner | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ \ Xsoft GmbH | T: +43 1 796 36 36 692 / pgpgd3tEf7a0v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AT&T public router
> A while back, AT&T had a publicly accessible router for doing route lookups > and stuff like that. It supposedly knew about the whole world. The special > thing about this router was that you didn't need a user name or password to > log on with. It just gave you the IOS prompt. I haven't been on this > router for a long time and I can't remember the exact name of it. It was > something like ip-router.att.net or route.world.att.net. Does anybody > remember this thing and have the host name? Thanks. route-server.ip.att.net Matt. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Hard disk lock down.
Thanks for your advice. I checked 'D' stats process numbers and compare with uptime's value.. yes, your opnion was right. :-) but I couldn't prove what occurs problem. There are'nt special messages in kern.log and dmesg. I'm using 2.4.5 kernel. What can I do check else? -Original Message- From: Russell Coker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:35 PM To: Cho Yoonbae; debian-isp@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Hard disk lock down. On Sunday 17 June 2001 10:41, Cho Yoonbae wrote: > I am operating an server with P3 850*1, 512MB, 90GB storage. (two > 45GB) > blue:~# df -H > FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > /dev/hda1 2.0G 233M 1.6G 13% / > /dev/hda3 32G > 2.6G 27G 9% /var > /dev/hda4 10G 646M 9.1G 7% /premium > > /dev/hdb2 43G 9.2G 32G 23% /home > > sometimes when my user > commands "mv" or "chmod" in telnet or ftp, > directory are locked down. > (under /home) > so any user(even root!) enter that directory and command in > that > directory until reboot the system. > > another important thing is that while system is in that situation, > > system's load is higher and higher. even 37 in result of "uptime". Uptime is the sum of two numbers. One number is the average number of processes in "D" state, the other is the average number of programs that are ready to do CPU operations. "D" state processes are processes that are blocked on disk IO. It sounds like there is a device driver error in your system related to disk IO that causes processes to get blocked, and that in this instance 37 programs have become blocked on disk IO. I suggest that you run the command "dmesg" and/or check /var/log/kern.log for information on what went wrong. Also please note that we can't help you solve such problems without information on what kernel version you run. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
AT&T public router
A while back, AT&T had a publicly accessible router for doing route lookups and stuff like that. It supposedly knew about the whole world. The special thing about this router was that you didn't need a user name or password to log on with. It just gave you the IOS prompt. I haven't been on this router for a long time and I can't remember the exact name of it. It was something like ip-router.att.net or route.world.att.net. Does anybody remember this thing and have the host name? Thanks. ---==--- ___/``\___ 0100
Re: AT&T public router
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:14:41 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >A while back, AT&T had a publicly accessible router for doing route lookups >and stuff like that. It supposedly knew about the whole world. The special >thing about this router was that you didn't need a user name or password to >log on with. It just gave you the IOS prompt. I haven't been on this >router for a long time and I can't remember the exact name of it. It was >something like ip-router.att.net or route.world.att.net. Does anybody >remember this thing and have the host name? Thanks. Why not simply use one of the dozen´s publicly available looking glasses instead? www.traceroute.org cheers, &rw -- / Ing. Robert Waldner | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ \ Xsoft GmbH | T: +43 1 796 36 36 692 / PGP signature
