Re: mail-bombing
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Marek Podmaka wrote: So is there any solution for this? We can't use safe_mode in php, it's too restrictive for most customers. We use postfix (default version in woody) A couple of thoughts: 1. Transparently proxy SMTP to your an MTA you control, which limits the number of simultaneous SMTP connections that it will accept. 2. Use a firewall (like netfilter, aka iptables) to rate limit outgoing smtp connections. You could also put in some alerts if some of these threaholds are exceeded. Cheers, Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. Senior Technical Consultant, OpenTrend Solutions Ltd. Phone: 416-669-3073 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opentrend.net OpenTrend Solutions: Reliable, secure solutions to real world problems. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:55, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand your guys' point, and I appreciate it.What you describe > here sounds nearly identicaly to my auto-responder. But, that may be my > lack of knowledge of how the mail system works in general. Something about Be smart. Don't mess with things that you don't understand. Get someone who works for your ISP to sort things out for you. > He could easily have shared his idea with the list, and mailed me > separately at my new address, without (in his words) publically archiving > my private address for spammers to harvest. Do you not agree that this > was simply malicious, and needlessly hurtful? Nothing less will work. In fact in your case I am not convinced that even this has worked. > Would he also teach someone to swim by throwing them in the water and > watching them drown, laughing as the dumbass goes down? In your case, yes! I'd make an AVI and put it on the web for everyone to enjoy! -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:11, Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Spam does not justify spam. I have come to this realization myself only > recently (I am, unfortunately still, a TMDA user). I can understand that You should cease using TMDA. For reference I never respond to TMDA type messages in response to messages I wrote, only if they are in response to spams. > many people see autoresponders as essential but due care should be taken to > not respond to innocent third parties and mailing lists especially. Auto-responders always respond to innocent people. The only excuse for an auto-responder is for a mailing list system (for subscription requests and for notification that only subscribers may post to the list). Generating an automatic message in response to an attempted list posting is acceptable because in the common case one person (the person who's email address was forged) is inconvenienced instead of many people (the list subscribers). > The fact that you sent your new email in the body as "johnc at planetz.com" > instead of as a real email address is, I suspect, immaterial. Spammers > send to millions of invalid email addresses, they scan all webpages, list > archives, etc. and look for anything that looks like a valid email address > ... IMO x at y is just as easy to find and parse as [EMAIL PROTECTED] They will be > finding you anyway. Paste it into the To: field in a modern email program such as kmail and the "at" will automatically be converted to "@" etc. > > Coker, consider a private email, before publically hanging someone. > > When someone does something stupid there is value in making sure that > everyone knows that it is stupid. Knowledge is only advanced when it is > shared. Also see the several incidents in the past where I have communicated privately with such idiots, been flamed by the idiot, then taken the discussion back to the Debian list where it started. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:29, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John C has requested that > > the following message be removed from the archives. > > My apologies that my autoresponder spammed the list. I've never posted to > the debian-isp list. Apparently someone's machine is infected with an > email-worm, which has used my jcooper address (which I stopped using > several years ago) as the return address. This always happens. > I started using an autoresponder after experimenting with spam-net, > spamassassin, and qurb for well over a year. When you receive hundreds of > spam per day, 9x% isn't good enough.Since I started using a responder, You could have just disabled that address entirely if that was your desire and let people who want to contact you use other methods. People were communicating long before email was invented. > I have received virtually zero spam, aside from those individuals like > nigerian scammers, who make an effort to respond by hand. Yes, there are That's a temporary thing. Once spammers get your address they share it. > > Requests to have list archives altered to hide the evidence of > > your mis-deeds doesn't work either. > > Clearly I've touched a nerve with Mr. Coker! The virtiolic nature of his > response here, and the public posting of my private email address which I > was trying to protect, is simply inane and immature.Next time, Mr. > Coker, consider a private email, before publically hanging someone. I gave up on that long ago. When I respond privately the offender never fixes their system to stop spamming. Publicising their mis-deeds is the only way to stop spammers. > Yes, I have asked the list manager to at least remove my personal johnc > address from the archive, which was so needlessly cc'd there. (Notice I'm > replying from my "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address which I use for public postings). > Secondarily, if the list managers so desire, they can remove this whole > thread, which is totally off topic for this list in the first place. No, it will never be removed. Any attempt you make to remove it will most likely get it more widely known. There is nothing you can do other than ceasing your spamming. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:58, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >...spammers drown you in water? > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor > > >..you want respect? Earn it. > > If earning respect in this crowd requires being disrespectful, then I'm not > interested. Earning respect in this crowd requires some intelligence, and to not be a spammer. Spamming is wrong, learn this and tell your friends. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
>...spammers drown you in water? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor >..you want respect? Earn it. If earning respect in this crowd requires being disrespectful, then I'm not interested. The list admins will either remove my private address from this thread, or they won't. Either way, I'll take my leave now. -John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:55:01 -0700, John wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > He could easily have shared his idea with the list, and mailed me > separately at my new address, without (in his words) publically > archiving my private address for spammers to harvest. Do you not > agree that this was simply malicious, and needlessly hurtful? ..no. > Would he also teach someone to swim by throwing them in the water and > watching them drown, laughing as the dumbass goes down? ..spammers drown you in water? > It's called respect. While it may sometimes be incompatible with ego, > it really requires very little effort. Consider it. ..you want respect? Earn it. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
> The smarter way to let people know that your email address has > changed is by > rejecting the message. You can reject the message (in postfix) > by using the > relocated table, that will reject the message giving the error "User has > moved to johnc at planetz.com" (or whatever you'd like the > message to say). > In this way very few innocent third parties should be subjected > to your spam. I understand your guys' point, and I appreciate it.What you describe here sounds nearly identicaly to my auto-responder. But, that may be my lack of knowledge of how the mail system works in general. Something about the way a mail system treats a rejection message, rather than a standard mail message?In any case, thanks for the constructive advice, Fraser. I'll look into it. > IMO x at y is just as easy to find and parse as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > They will be finding you anyway. > I was worried about that as well. The fact is, they haven't. What you guys are failing to acknowledge is that my silly little auto-responder has completely worked. In the year that I've used it, I have received about 3 spam messages, and those were from nigerian-type scammers who obviously carefully read my reply and responded by hand. At my previous address, I was receiving literally hundreds of spam per day. Clearly it has worked, and very well. This is far superior to my experience with other spam filters, which either didn't filter enough, or had too many false positives requiring me to read thru the "possible spam" messages, which is just as bad as not filtering at all. > > Coker, consider a private email, before publically hanging someone. > > When someone does something stupid there is value in making sure > that everyone knows that it is stupid. > Knowledge is only advanced when it is shared. He could easily have shared his idea with the list, and mailed me separately at my new address, without (in his words) publically archiving my private address for spammers to harvest. Do you not agree that this was simply malicious, and needlessly hurtful? Would he also teach someone to swim by throwing them in the water and watching them drown, laughing as the dumbass goes down? It's called respect. While it may sometimes be incompatible with ego, it really requires very little effort. Consider it. -John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Saturday 23 October 2004 16:29, John Cooper wrote: > Clearly I've touched a nerve with Mr. Coker! The virtiolic nature of his > response here, and the public posting of my private email address which I > was trying to protect, is simply inane and immature. Next time, Mr. You are sending unsolicited emails in response to every single email that is sent to your old address. You are wasting the resources of potentially thousands of people. Spam does not justify spam. I have come to this realization myself only recently (I am, unfortunately still, a TMDA user). I can understand that many people see autoresponders as essential but due care should be taken to not respond to innocent third parties and mailing lists especially. The fact that you sent your new email in the body as "johnc at planetz.com" instead of as a real email address is, I suspect, immaterial. Spammers send to millions of invalid email addresses, they scan all webpages, list archives, etc. and look for anything that looks like a valid email address ... IMO x at y is just as easy to find and parse as [EMAIL PROTECTED] They will be finding you anyway. The smarter way to let people know that your email address has changed is by rejecting the message. You can reject the message (in postfix) by using the relocated table, that will reject the message giving the error "User has moved to johnc at planetz.com" (or whatever you'd like the message to say). In this way very few innocent third parties should be subjected to your spam. > Coker, consider a private email, before publically hanging someone. When someone does something stupid there is value in making sure that everyone knows that it is stupid. Knowledge is only advanced when it is shared. -- Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wehave.net/ Georgetown, Ontario, Canada Debian GNU/Linux
RE: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
> John C has requested that > the following message be removed from the archives. > My apologies that my autoresponder spammed the list. I've never posted to the debian-isp list. Apparently someone's machine is infected with an email-worm, which has used my jcooper address (which I stopped using several years ago) as the return address. I started using an autoresponder after experimenting with spam-net, spamassassin, and qurb for well over a year. When you receive hundreds of spam per day, 9x% isn't good enough.Since I started using a responder, I have received virtually zero spam, aside from those individuals like nigerian scammers, who make an effort to respond by hand. Yes, there are frustrating misfires, caused by worms, but in the last year, this is the only major incident. Ward, thanks for the link to dspam.sf.net, I'll see if I can get my ISP to use it. > Requests to have list archives altered to hide the evidence of > your mis-deeds doesn't work either. Clearly I've touched a nerve with Mr. Coker! The virtiolic nature of his response here, and the public posting of my private email address which I was trying to protect, is simply inane and immature.Next time, Mr. Coker, consider a private email, before publically hanging someone. Yes, I have asked the list manager to at least remove my personal johnc address from the archive, which was so needlessly cc'd there. (Notice I'm replying from my "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address which I use for public postings). Secondarily, if the list managers so desire, they can remove this whole thread, which is totally off topic for this list in the first place. -John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
For the benefit of interested people. John C has requested that the following message be removed from the archives. Auto-responders ARE spam. They will hit innocent people. Just because most victims of auto-responders don't complain does not mean that the auto-responder is not causing problems. Requests to have list archives altered to hide the evidence of your mis-deeds doesn't work either. It just gets you more copies of the message. On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:27, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced > > to change my email address yet again. My new address is johnc at > > planetz.com. > > Please don't be stupid. Such auto-responders will get you added to all the > spam lists again. > > I've put your new email address in the header of this message which will be > publicly archived for spammers to harvest. > > > Have a nice day. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:27:24PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced to > > change my email address yet again. My new address is johnc at planetz.com. This is silly reasoning. Try dspam (dspam.sf.net), it has 99.511% accuracy for me (and I'm not even running the latest version). Other people report 99.9x% accuracy. Bye for now, Ward. -- Pong.be -( "HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox)- Virtual hosting -( )- http://pong.be -( )- GnuPG public key: http://gpg.dtype.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced to > change my email address yet again. My new address is johnc at planetz.com. Please don't be stupid. Such auto-responders will get you added to all the spam lists again. I've put your new email address in the header of this message which will be publicly archived for spammers to harvest. Have a nice day. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure jcoo...@planetz.com)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Automatic reply- John's address has changed Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced to change my email address yet again. My new address is johnc at planetz.com. If you're not sending me spam, please update your records and ***resend your message to my new address***. I won't receive mail sent to the old address anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience! Thanks, -John Original Message -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure frit...@compilager.de)
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, Vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail. Wir werden in kürze Ihre Anfrage beantworten und bitten Sie zwischenzeitlich um etwas Geduld und Versändnis. M.F.G. Mindel EDV -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure rest.love.eros-un...@subscribe.ru)
Добрый день Кто-то, возможно вы, написал письмо с адреса debian-isp@lists.debian.org на адрес робота управления подпиской по почте [EMAIL PROTECTED] Такое письмо означает, что требуется ОТПИСАТЬ адрес debian-isp@lists.debian.org от дискуссионного листа "Флюиды Лолиты: Расслабьтесь, поговорим о сексе.". Если это так, то подтвердите, пожалуйста, ваш запрос написав в течение недели любое (даже пустое) письмо по адресу: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Иначе не делайте ничего и запрос будет проигнорирован. -- С уважением, Информационный Канал Subscribe.Ru http://subscribe.ru/mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery (failure rest.love.eros-unsub@subscribe.ru)
Добрый день Кто-то, возможно вы, написал письмо с адреса [EMAIL PROTECTED] на адрес робота управления подпиской по почте [EMAIL PROTECTED] Такое письмо означает, что требуется ОТПИСАТЬ адрес [EMAIL PROTECTED] от дискуссионного листа "Флюиды Лолиты: Расслабьтесь, поговорим о сексе.". Если это так, то подтвердите, пожалуйста, ваш запрос написав в течение недели любое (даже пустое) письмо по адресу: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Иначе не делайте ничего и запрос будет проигнорирован. -- С уважением, Информационный Канал Subscribe.Ru http://subscribe.ru/mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail from Fatima Iyesa Ismiana
Meneguzzi Guerrino INSERM U634 Faculté de Médecine 27, Ave de Valombrose 06107 Nice Cedex 2 France Tel.: 33 (0)493 37 77 79 Fax.: 33 (0)493 81 14 04 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mail from Fatima Iyesa Ismiana
Meneguzzi Guerrino INSERM U634 Faculté de Médecine 27, Ave de Valombrose 06107 Nice Cedex 2 France Tel.: 33 (0)493 37 77 79 Fax.: 33 (0)493 81 14 04 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Delivery System
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="Windows-1252" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available. >=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092 >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; > name="readme.pif" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="readme.pif" >TVqQAAME//8AALgAQAAA >qAAA >UEUA >AEwBAwDgAA8BCwEHAABQEGAAAGC+cMAASgAAEAAA >AAIAAAQABAAA0BACAAAQAAAQABAAABAQ >AADowQAAMAEAAADAAADoAQAA > >AABVUFgwAABgEAAEAACAAADg >VVBYMQAAUHBQBAAAQAAA4C5yc3JjABDA >BFQAAEAAAMAA > > > > > > > >MS4yNABVUFghDAkCCUh+iY/UNhyBKZYAAFNOgAAAJgEAxe6H >ApIAUCZKAEAD/bJpmiwQBPQl6AEAS85pmm7ZH8gqwAO4sKimaZqmoJiQiICapmmaeHBoYFhQzWCf >aUgARAc4MDRN03QDKCQcGBDTLLvXCCMD+Cnw6E3TNE3g2NDIvLQ0TdM0rKSclIzONk3TiHxwaClv >XKbpmsEHVEwDRDiapmmaLCQcFAwEaZrObfwofwP07OSmaZqm3NTMyLyapmmatKykoJiQZ5umaYyA >eHAoe2jebNN1B1wDVEwo//sLdrb740APNCj3LC8DmqYZ+SQoShwUDARpms7sm/wnA+zo4KZpmqbY >1MzIwJqmabq4J7CsqKCYaZqmaZSMiIR8pGmapnRsZFxUaZqmG0wDREA4MKZpmqYoIBgQCJqmc5sA >+CbPA+jg2Gebzm1UNEMDQDQ024r/nVrQ2uX0Bh8zTmxyTtgCl1+SyAE9fL5DS5bkNYngOpf/ >91rAKZUEdutj3lzdYehy/48iuFHtjC7TeybUDTnwqmf/J+qweUUU5ruTbkwtEfjiz7+y >qKGdnJ6jq7bE1ekAGjf/V3qgyfUkVovD/jx9wQhSn+9CmPFNrA5z20a0JZkQigf/hwqQ >GaWlqP7yw9Ko+BIsSmuPtuANPXCm3xtafOEnVcn/EmC+GGXVOJ4Xc+JUiUG8muM/xlCNbQCW >T8tqDLFDerL/cxfOiEcFyIpXI/LEmXFMLgvv1sCtnZCGD3t6fJGJlKL/s8fe+hU1WH6n >wwI0eaHcGluP5jBtzSB2zyuK/FG5JJL/A3fuaOVl6G6Xg4N2jJWhsMLX7wooSW2UvusbToS9 >+Tj/er8HUqDxRWyWU7MafOVRwDKnH5oYmR2kLrtL3nQNqUj/6o834pBB9axmI+OmbDUB >0KJ3TyoI6c20not7bmRdWVj/Wl9ncoCRpbzW8xM2XIWx4BJHf7r4OX3EDlur/lStCT3/ >mnenAnDhVcwGw0PGXNVhYWRqc3+MoLXN6AYnS3Kcyfn/LGKbVxZYfbBgJv4jetQxkeRawy/O >EIX9dPZ3+4AMmSn/vFLrhybIbRXAbh+TikThlNQSId+ugFUtGObHq/J8aVn/TkI7Nzg4 >PUVQXm+DmrTR8RQ6Y8++8OVstuQjW/e8Yaj/0DuJ7nM8Y/iZ4MVLkRehId4isz8/VEhRe29+ >1s/ZbpX/3/7/KQMj6ZQJv+bzpUEQpnwyaWuAIQstx07SEIJs+f9zp3feFIcHB/tSqgFhwCyb >9yaW3ZedImAPRp7N/SxAf/+TstLxCSBYdmhjXVBSUVNqZHcBLMXvVDC8VxE8zp1Xbv8g >461g2tFSFc5mX7dBwBTkZZOfeP5yDbznapV7exN2dv99HA0t8vb0sPHR53n63Uxlo/8nbIzd >C9uMG6m9dYc7T//bFIJCFAlFzIIP+mK3KXP7FYPnHpN+tCRpKf+9KMvqTv//7f93Djqwv/dU >1OxzmAFNBp3yoq/CYvPlXjffBXFS/wf4G0B+VD6nqU8sAn0wyOcG0lQqGmtMAZ0E9mr6HccG >/4X///gdkASrlgAGBhAr75nUTv8XeAuTxvh1IYyk/1//zHJr62/+pf3s0EHJeJHZxKwmx+jg >qbcaXW/sKRCj/7zz7fVvUSE1jdZTHEgpGOO3XD+duM3QUlXjtUPqvmfj/6CgMuLOSTok >LzAKj66E4XVAoWKYsvUwSuDj/5GBwScH/3eIZ49Us4UI4v6CRathjnTauyo4rvBK1BicF4pI >wrW8/577H1bmbpDgO0ezoBq30qq8xPeTSKYBwAT/BhKLXanY/72UMfgf6FpjPt/WCspC >1QxeYEly9fSu9FMX/BYV8o6a/3NwPIKx4o43W1MWoieUVFissTU3Pqp1ZZUhbusahIFq >/+YKGD86lZ+BguNzpEc9CQLWLojCp9U/ilzqn1Y7Xz1K/9L//8N5X0MJuPCrms4esoXZS8HUO17P >3/ZH+Ur3/9j7LbSKZ2L/WK0RjCL3W8tY34X8rOBl2uuXlOJgCO8//zzj7H8QjmB+3U2b >5J0FG5d628yz+zePJfE5HbJ8GvUd/x+9n+nG6unrPtmWcP072kUl9vOk59YEIUw5/lukh4mS >C53TsFuNKjZCG8rR5DRQrMMcxeFmimxbM1FC/+0+I6ti1+6U9DSy6dVJrF4mrrxteWeV >WzeGpII9rofD/4ewgLbfQ9+7i4BlLx6oMsu1KpM3Q3niYjRauu1pXGwi/6wY1XPh68iG >L1pJT/FD8zfLbzYYPWctofGYQhK4DcHK/7f//2sKa/gFjY0HnpfoiFC2srjZ8zKBX9p+X/fQHQ3/ >ShsDOn0PPwtPGPEr4Yi1NyT31AcfN2/Na5BdQpaXn6L/n50vJlZAhvcbrLVavCc7JKSd >idPIpU82+mgAvj5dGdb/2///9ckUyfDkjiw2iQvghuvRCwoz07M2hpLkvYowoP/HuV680N6r >wchK14K/XeWgnpOQJdhALzGgCaazMAGh2P9frZFovBhyOfUsoWNhix4aQSY3G0eq2fC7xeYx >4EwsaTf+///o+hHGcPdD+0ei2qDV9yjFv7WVcNEE9fBNaRv8lj2TBqUsujl4DNudAiPDmVWW >hFuHQjz/MzSANfYd8ySmXsbvONrcqoff2HIvP8Tk9pY2j0Q1R/X/QdWRJmlnyhPaLDJt >CSkRc1pBVgs6PfBSHawvphrwt/r//0v/MRQml5IPtKQsvl7QDM/PtwBr03qRVDiIkrH/N2j/5Qrn >4JUlmsjO1oIDpc578bTzHTb//1/4sAzRf5GPJf5SijZ1a+/bwdkjxg8+dRWkwP3/vLrDPAha >53OGbtWwV3A6D36k3FDVQj8Pjq8/q+BAc+P///8bwlx/iRSy+e0DGCL+C48qlJUdTWH6Jm9hE
Re: Mail Delivery System
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="Windows-1252" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available. >=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092 >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; > name="readme.pif" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="readme.pif" >TVqQAAME//8AALgAQAAA >qAAA >UEUA >AEwBAwDgAA8BCwEHAABQEGAAAGC+cMAASgAAEAAA >AAIAAAQABAAA0BACAAAQAAAQABAAABAQ >AADowQAAMAEAAADAAADoAQAA > >AABVUFgwAABgEAAEAACAAADg >VVBYMQAAUHBQBAAAQAAA4C5yc3JjABDA >BFQAAEAAAMAA > > > > > > > >MS4yNABVUFghDAkCCUh+iY/UNhyBKZYAAFNOgAAAJgEAxe6H >ApIAUCZKAEAD/bJpmiwQBPQl6AEAS85pmm7ZH8gqwAO4sKimaZqmoJiQiICapmmaeHBoYFhQzWCf >aUgARAc4MDRN03QDKCQcGBDTLLvXCCMD+Cnw6E3TNE3g2NDIvLQ0TdM0rKSclIzONk3TiHxwaClv >XKbpmsEHVEwDRDiapmmaLCQcFAwEaZrObfwofwP07OSmaZqm3NTMyLyapmmatKykoJiQZ5umaYyA >eHAoe2jebNN1B1wDVEwo//sLdrb740APNCj3LC8DmqYZ+SQoShwUDARpms7sm/wnA+zo4KZpmqbY >1MzIwJqmabq4J7CsqKCYaZqmaZSMiIR8pGmapnRsZFxUaZqmG0wDREA4MKZpmqYoIBgQCJqmc5sA >+CbPA+jg2Gebzm1UNEMDQDQ024r/nVrQ2uX0Bh8zTmxyTtgCl1+SyAE9fL5DS5bkNYngOpf/ >91rAKZUEdutj3lzdYehy/48iuFHtjC7TeybUDTnwqmf/J+qweUUU5ruTbkwtEfjiz7+y >qKGdnJ6jq7bE1ekAGjf/V3qgyfUkVovD/jx9wQhSn+9CmPFNrA5z20a0JZkQigf/hwqQ >GaWlqP7yw9Ko+BIsSmuPtuANPXCm3xtafOEnVcn/EmC+GGXVOJ4Xc+JUiUG8muM/xlCNbQCW >T8tqDLFDerL/cxfOiEcFyIpXI/LEmXFMLgvv1sCtnZCGD3t6fJGJlKL/s8fe+hU1WH6n >wwI0eaHcGluP5jBtzSB2zyuK/FG5JJL/A3fuaOVl6G6Xg4N2jJWhsMLX7wooSW2UvusbToS9 >+Tj/er8HUqDxRWyWU7MafOVRwDKnH5oYmR2kLrtL3nQNqUj/6o834pBB9axmI+OmbDUB >0KJ3TyoI6c20not7bmRdWVj/Wl9ncoCRpbzW8xM2XIWx4BJHf7r4OX3EDlur/lStCT3/ >mnenAnDhVcwGw0PGXNVhYWRqc3+MoLXN6AYnS3Kcyfn/LGKbVxZYfbBgJv4jetQxkeRawy/O >EIX9dPZ3+4AMmSn/vFLrhybIbRXAbh+TikThlNQSId+ugFUtGObHq/J8aVn/TkI7Nzg4 >PUVQXm+DmrTR8RQ6Y8++8OVstuQjW/e8Yaj/0DuJ7nM8Y/iZ4MVLkRehId4isz8/VEhRe29+ >1s/ZbpX/3/7/KQMj6ZQJv+bzpUEQpnwyaWuAIQstx07SEIJs+f9zp3feFIcHB/tSqgFhwCyb >9yaW3ZedImAPRp7N/SxAf/+TstLxCSBYdmhjXVBSUVNqZHcBLMXvVDC8VxE8zp1Xbv8g >461g2tFSFc5mX7dBwBTkZZOfeP5yDbznapV7exN2dv99HA0t8vb0sPHR53n63Uxlo/8nbIzd >C9uMG6m9dYc7T//bFIJCFAlFzIIP+mK3KXP7FYPnHpN+tCRpKf+9KMvqTv//7f93Djqwv/dU >1OxzmAFNBp3yoq/CYvPlXjffBXFS/wf4G0B+VD6nqU8sAn0wyOcG0lQqGmtMAZ0E9mr6HccG >/4X///gdkASrlgAGBhAr75nUTv8XeAuTxvh1IYyk/1//zHJr62/+pf3s0EHJeJHZxKwmx+jg >qbcaXW/sKRCj/7zz7fVvUSE1jdZTHEgpGOO3XD+duM3QUlXjtUPqvmfj/6CgMuLOSTok >LzAKj66E4XVAoWKYsvUwSuDj/5GBwScH/3eIZ49Us4UI4v6CRathjnTauyo4rvBK1BicF4pI >wrW8/577H1bmbpDgO0ezoBq30qq8xPeTSKYBwAT/BhKLXanY/72UMfgf6FpjPt/WCspC >1QxeYEly9fSu9FMX/BYV8o6a/3NwPIKx4o43W1MWoieUVFissTU3Pqp1ZZUhbusahIFq >/+YKGD86lZ+BguNzpEc9CQLWLojCp9U/ilzqn1Y7Xz1K/9L//8N5X0MJuPCrms4esoXZS8HUO17P >3/ZH+Ur3/9j7LbSKZ2L/WK0RjCL3W8tY34X8rOBl2uuXlOJgCO8//zzj7H8QjmB+3U2b >5J0FG5d628yz+zePJfE5HbJ8GvUd/x+9n+nG6unrPtmWcP072kUl9vOk59YEIUw5/lukh4mS >C53TsFuNKjZCG8rR5DRQrMMcxeFmimxbM1FC/+0+I6ti1+6U9DSy6dVJrF4mrrxteWeV >WzeGpII9rofD/4ewgLbfQ9+7i4BlLx6oMsu1KpM3Q3niYjRauu1pXGwi/6wY1XPh68iG >L1pJT/FD8zfLbzYYPWctofGYQhK4DcHK/7f//2sKa/gFjY0HnpfoiFC2srjZ8zKBX9p+X/fQHQ3/ >ShsDOn0PPwtPGPEr4Yi1NyT31AcfN2/Na5BdQpaXn6L/n50vJlZAhvcbrLVavCc7JKSd >idPIpU82+mgAvj5dGdb/2///9ckUyfDkjiw2iQvghuvRCwoz07M2hpLkvYowoP/HuV680N6r >wchK14K/XeWgnpOQJdhALzGgCaazMAGh2P9frZFovBhyOfUsoWNhix4aQSY3G0eq2fC7xeYx >4EwsaTf+///o+hHGcPdD+0ei2qDV9yjFv7WVcNEE9fBNaRv8lj2TBqUsujl4DNudAiPDmVWW >hFuHQjz/MzSANfYd8ySmXsbvONrcqoff2HIvP8Tk9pY2j0Q1R/X/QdWRJmlnyhPaLDJt >CSkRc1pBVgs6PfBSHawvphrwt/r//0v/MRQml5IPtKQsvl7QDM/PtwBr03qRVDiIkrH/N2j/5Qrn >4JUlmsjO1oIDpc578bTzHTb//1/4sAzRf5GPJf5SijZ1a+/bwdkjxg8+dRWkwP3/vLrDPAha >53OGbtWwV3A6D36k3FDVQj8Pjq8/q+BAc+P///8bwlx/iRSy+e0DGCL+C48qlJUdTWH6Jm9hE
Re: Mail Queue timeouts
Thursday 23 October 2003 06:12, Lauchlin Wilkinson > > What are other people doing? sticking to RFCs. O:-) i would not lower it under 3daysjust in case the remote mail server brakes on weekend. -- Only a fool fights in a burning house. -- Kank the Klingon, "Day of the Dove", stardate unknown
Re: Mail Queue timeouts
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 15:12:55 +1100, Lauchlin Wilkinson wrote: > Hi, > > what are peoples thoughts on the length of time mail should sit in the > mail queue? Due to the rise in the amount of spam and viruses that > seems to be going around lately I throttled back the delivery warning > back to 30 minutes and the delivery failure back to 12 hours. My logic > is that most people these days expect e-mail to be pretty instant so to > have mail sitting in a queue for 7 days and not getting a warning for > several hours seems a bit old fashioned. So far 12 hours and 30 > minutes seems to be working well. What are other people doing? > Just a note: I have noticed that sending warnings about messages waiting in the queue causes problems with e.g. mailing lists - users get removed from mailing lists by list manager programs which treat warnings as errors. -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros.
Re: Mail Queue timeouts
Thursday 23 October 2003 06:12, Lauchlin Wilkinson > > What are other people doing? sticking to RFCs. O:-) i would not lower it under 3daysjust in case the remote mail server brakes on weekend. -- Only a fool fights in a burning house. -- Kank the Klingon, "Day of the Dove", stardate unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Queue timeouts
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 15:12:55 +1100, Lauchlin Wilkinson wrote: > Hi, > > what are peoples thoughts on the length of time mail should sit in the > mail queue? Due to the rise in the amount of spam and viruses that > seems to be going around lately I throttled back the delivery warning > back to 30 minutes and the delivery failure back to 12 hours. My logic > is that most people these days expect e-mail to be pretty instant so to > have mail sitting in a queue for 7 days and not getting a warning for > several hours seems a bit old fashioned. So far 12 hours and 30 > minutes seems to be working well. What are other people doing? > Just a note: I have noticed that sending warnings about messages waiting in the queue causes problems with e.g. mailing lists - users get removed from mailing lists by list manager programs which treat warnings as errors. -- 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: Mail architecture for up 30.000 accounts
JawMail: Give the free JawMail A try. I'm using it here and it's great. Also, if you have any problems, the programmer will assist you quite quickly. It's worth trying. It directly connects to the IMAP- Server, supports folders etc. as well. On 30 May 2003 at 10:33, Carlos L.M. wrote: > I need a sample of mail architecture for up 30.000 > accounts. Can you help me ?? > > For software, I would use this: > > SMTP: Postfix > IMAP: Courier > POP3: Courier > Authtentication and user preferences: MySQL > Webmail: IMP > Anti-spam: spamassassin > Anti-virus: F-Prot > > Any help are welcome, and sorry for my bad english. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail architecture for up 30.000 accounts
JawMail: Give the free JawMail A try. I'm using it here and it's great. Also, if you have any problems, the programmer will assist you quite quickly. It's worth trying. It directly connects to the IMAP- Server, supports folders etc. as well. On 30 May 2003 at 10:33, Carlos L.M. wrote: > I need a sample of mail architecture for up 30.000 > accounts. Can you help me ?? > > For software, I would use this: > > SMTP: Postfix > IMAP: Courier > POP3: Courier > Authtentication and user preferences: MySQL > Webmail: IMP > Anti-spam: spamassassin > Anti-virus: F-Prot > > Any help are welcome, and sorry for my bad english.
Re: Mail architecture for up 30.000 accounts
On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:34, Bart Matthaei wrote: > > For software, I would use this: > > > > SMTP: Postfix > > Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends > on your personal preference. If you want to run a machine for years on end without needing an urgent security-related upgrade then Sendmail will not do the job. You can install Postfix or Qmail and expect that you can leave them run for a few years without incident. > > IMAP: Courier > > POP3: Courier > > Agreed. Yes, Courier is good. > > Authtentication and user preferences: MySQL > > You should check if both your MTA, IMAP/POP3, and delivery agent (procmail > for instance) will support MySQL authentication. I suggest LDAP. > > Webmail: IMP > > Don't use IMP for a large userbase. IMP is slow and bloated. The interface > is really slick, but it's a real CPU/MEM hog. CPU and RAM are getting cheap now. I was recently involved in moving a large ISP from Netscape to open source software. It had well over 1M accounts, over 500,000 accounts that were in active use, and something over 50,000 accounts in active use for webmail. When I finished working for them there were two IMP machines in the webmail cluster and a third was added later. One machine could handle the load on it's own if necessary (although at peak times one machine would be a bottleneck). The machines had 4G of RAM (excessive - 2G would have been plenty) and 2 * 1.8GHz P4 Xeon CPUs with Hyper-threading. Linux 2.4.x doesn't schedule things on hyper-threaded SMP machines as well as you may desire, so single-CPU machines are probably better value for money. I suggest having machines with a single Athlon or Xeon CPU that's as fast as possible for IMP servers. For 30,000 users then two machines that each have a fast Athlon or Xeon CPU and 1G of RAM should do fine. I'm not strictly advocating IMP here. But I found it to work fine when I had to run it. One problem with IMP is that you'll want the latest version which needs lots of things that aren't in woody. I ended up making my IMP servers run unstable for this. Also you need PHP 4.3 (or a patched PHP 4.2.3) for supporting quotas on the number of messages as well as the size of a user's mail box. Also don't run your webmail and your mail server on the same machine. > > Anti-virus: F-Prot > > I'm not into Anti-Virus, so I can't help you there. Amavis. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail architecture for up 30.000 accounts
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:33:14AM +0200, Carlos L.M. wrote: > Hi all, > > I need a sample of mail architecture for up 30.000 > accounts. Can you help me ?? > > For software, I would use this: > > SMTP: Postfix Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends on your personal preference. > IMAP: Courier > POP3: Courier Agreed. > Authtentication and user preferences: MySQL You should check if both your MTA, IMAP/POP3, and delivery agent (procmail for instance) will support MySQL authentication. > Webmail: IMP Don't use IMP for a large userbase. IMP is slow and bloated. The interface is really slick, but it's a real CPU/MEM hog. I'd go for squirrelmail if I were you. > Anti-spam: spamassassin Agreed. > Anti-virus: F-Prot I'm not into Anti-Virus, so I can't help you there. Cheers, Bart -- Bart Matthaei [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's no sex in struct sockaddr_in .. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail architecture for up 30.000 accounts
On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:34, Bart Matthaei wrote: > > For software, I would use this: > > > > SMTP: Postfix > > Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends > on your personal preference. If you want to run a machine for years on end without needing an urgent security-related upgrade then Sendmail will not do the job. You can install Postfix or Qmail and expect that you can leave them run for a few years without incident. > > IMAP: Courier > > POP3: Courier > > Agreed. Yes, Courier is good. > > Authtentication and user preferences: MySQL > > You should check if both your MTA, IMAP/POP3, and delivery agent (procmail > for instance) will support MySQL authentication. I suggest LDAP. > > Webmail: IMP > > Don't use IMP for a large userbase. IMP is slow and bloated. The interface > is really slick, but it's a real CPU/MEM hog. CPU and RAM are getting cheap now. I was recently involved in moving a large ISP from Netscape to open source software. It had well over 1M accounts, over 500,000 accounts that were in active use, and something over 50,000 accounts in active use for webmail. When I finished working for them there were two IMP machines in the webmail cluster and a third was added later. One machine could handle the load on it's own if necessary (although at peak times one machine would be a bottleneck). The machines had 4G of RAM (excessive - 2G would have been plenty) and 2 * 1.8GHz P4 Xeon CPUs with Hyper-threading. Linux 2.4.x doesn't schedule things on hyper-threaded SMP machines as well as you may desire, so single-CPU machines are probably better value for money. I suggest having machines with a single Athlon or Xeon CPU that's as fast as possible for IMP servers. For 30,000 users then two machines that each have a fast Athlon or Xeon CPU and 1G of RAM should do fine. I'm not strictly advocating IMP here. But I found it to work fine when I had to run it. One problem with IMP is that you'll want the latest version which needs lots of things that aren't in woody. I ended up making my IMP servers run unstable for this. Also you need PHP 4.3 (or a patched PHP 4.2.3) for supporting quotas on the number of messages as well as the size of a user's mail box. Also don't run your webmail and your mail server on the same machine. > > Anti-virus: F-Prot > > I'm not into Anti-Virus, so I can't help you there. Amavis. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page
Re: Mail architecture for up 30.000 accounts
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:33:14AM +0200, Carlos L.M. wrote: > Hi all, > > I need a sample of mail architecture for up 30.000 > accounts. Can you help me ?? > > For software, I would use this: > > SMTP: Postfix Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends on your personal preference. > IMAP: Courier > POP3: Courier Agreed. > Authtentication and user preferences: MySQL You should check if both your MTA, IMAP/POP3, and delivery agent (procmail for instance) will support MySQL authentication. > Webmail: IMP Don't use IMP for a large userbase. IMP is slow and bloated. The interface is really slick, but it's a real CPU/MEM hog. I'd go for squirrelmail if I were you. > Anti-spam: spamassassin Agreed. > Anti-virus: F-Prot I'm not into Anti-Virus, so I can't help you there. Cheers, Bart -- Bart Matthaei [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's no sex in struct sockaddr_in ..
Re: Mail folders and Postfix
I would check /etc/login.defs, you can specify the Mail drop there. You can further customize the default adduser options in /etc/adduser.conf (i think it is...) ~duane Splash Tekalal wrote: I've found an interesting, if annoying bug in my system and was wondering if anyone could suggest a fix.. I'm currently running Debian STABLE on a P3 900 with 512mb ram and 60GB of HDD space.. My problem is this.. When I create a new user account, according to logcheck e-mails, the system is setting new users' e-mail boxes to /dev/null.. Doing a first time run of pine with each user fixes the problem, but I'd like to try and fix the defaults.. Where would I find this setting? Any help is appreciated. Thanks! -Splash
Re: Mail folders and Postfix
Hi Splash Tekalal wrote: [...] When I create a new user account, according to logcheck e-mails, the system is setting new users' e-mail boxes to /dev/null.. Doing a first time run of pine with each user fixes the problem, but I'd like to try and fix the defaults.. Where would I find this setting? /etc/skel after maildirmake for a user, copy Maildir to /etc/skel and chmod it to root, you can put there also any other precofiguration per user Christoph Löffler
Re: Mail server
Hello, Am 19:16 2003-02-24 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben: > >On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote: >The fastest drives (15000rpm) will take an average of 4ms for the disk to spin >to the correct location to start a transfer in addition to the seek times for >moving the heads. That gives a performance of something less than 100 IO >operations per second per disk. I am working on a bunch of Dell PowerEdge >2650 machines with 4*U160 15000rpm SCSI disks in a hardware RAID-5 with a >battery backed write-back cache. This gives a peak performance of about 130 >disk writes per second. Last year I have gotten a Athlon MP 1900 with an IPC-Vortex Raid-5 and three IBM 146 GByte (U320/1). I have tested it with postgresql and with a smpt/pop3 Server. I have made a stresstest by seting up 50 users and subscribed all to more then 40 debian-* Mailinglist... Traffic enough !!! The server has handled more then 220 Mails/second unfortunately I was not able to test in the same time user accesses with pop. OK, for you a little Bbit overkil like for me... I think, I will handle only 500-800 Users with normal traffic which mean, around 10-20 mails a day. Traffic which can handled by a Duron 900MHz, 256 MB and a RAID-5 Array of 3 x IBM 18 GByte (U320/1) on an IPC-Vortex. My Dual-Athlon will be the central nfs-Server of my Cyber-Center/ Internet-Cafe in Strasbourg, where users have 100 MByte Diskspace, Which can used for private files, ~/public_html, ~/mail and ftpspace inside of ~/public_html. in plus it serves Webmail, pop3, asmtp and suports 30-40 Workstations with nfs inside my Cyber-Center. I have used Webmin but it does not what I need and now I use my own php4 Scripts to manage the users... I think, there is no problem with the traffic. Oh yes, if I run public, I will use 4 + 1 Harddisk. Greetings from Strasbourg Michelle
Re: Mail server
Hello, Am 19:16 2003-02-24 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben: > >On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote: >The fastest drives (15000rpm) will take an average of 4ms for the disk to spin >to the correct location to start a transfer in addition to the seek times for >moving the heads. That gives a performance of something less than 100 IO >operations per second per disk. I am working on a bunch of Dell PowerEdge >2650 machines with 4*U160 15000rpm SCSI disks in a hardware RAID-5 with a >battery backed write-back cache. This gives a peak performance of about 130 >disk writes per second. Last year I have gotten a Athlon MP 1900 with an IPC-Vortex Raid-5 and three IBM 146 GByte (U320/1). I have tested it with postgresql and with a smpt/pop3 Server. I have made a stresstest by seting up 50 users and subscribed all to more then 40 debian-* Mailinglist... Traffic enough !!! The server has handled more then 220 Mails/second unfortunately I was not able to test in the same time user accesses with pop. OK, for you a little Bbit overkil like for me... I think, I will handle only 500-800 Users with normal traffic which mean, around 10-20 mails a day. Traffic which can handled by a Duron 900MHz, 256 MB and a RAID-5 Array of 3 x IBM 18 GByte (U320/1) on an IPC-Vortex. My Dual-Athlon will be the central nfs-Server of my Cyber-Center/ Internet-Cafe in Strasbourg, where users have 100 MByte Diskspace, Which can used for private files, ~/public_html, ~/mail and ftpspace inside of ~/public_html. in plus it serves Webmail, pop3, asmtp and suports 30-40 Workstations with nfs inside my Cyber-Center. I have used Webmin but it does not what I need and now I use my own php4 Scripts to manage the users... I think, there is no problem with the traffic. Oh yes, if I run public, I will use 4 + 1 Harddisk. Greetings from Strasbourg Michelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Server Authentication
Gentlemen - Sorry if I'm stepping into the middle of your conversation but I just finished installing cyrus-imap, postfix, & procmail. It is working - by the way. The article that I used to help me was in LinuxWorld. You can find the original article at www.linuxworld.com. In the first screen, enter IMAP in the search field. Currently, I am using passwd for my authentication but the last section of the article had some info that might be of help to you. Specifically, I would like to put ldap on my system. But that is another project for another day. Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-isp@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Mail Server Authentication Hi Teun, had a look at the link Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2 I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords, and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd - hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to maintain myself... On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:02PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://people.debian.org/~hmh/ has a complete set of cyrus and postfix > packages backported from sid to woody. I use them on one of my personal Cheers Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Server Authentication
Gentlemen - Sorry if I'm stepping into the middle of your conversation but I just finished installing cyrus-imap, postfix, & procmail. It is working - by the way. The article that I used to help me was in LinuxWorld. You can find the original article at www.linuxworld.com. In the first screen, enter IMAP in the search field. Currently, I am using passwd for my authentication but the last section of the article had some info that might be of help to you. Specifically, I would like to put ldap on my system. But that is another project for another day. Greg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mail Server Authentication Hi Teun, had a look at the link Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2 I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords, and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd - hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to maintain myself... On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:02PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://people.debian.org/~hmh/ has a complete set of cyrus and postfix > packages backported from sid to woody. I use them on one of my personal Cheers Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Server Authentication
Hi Teun, had a look at the link Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2 I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords, and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd - hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to maintain myself... On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:02PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://people.debian.org/~hmh/ has a complete set of cyrus and postfix > packages backported from sid to woody. I use them on one of my personal Cheers Andrew
Re: Mail Server Authentication
Hi Teun, had a look at the link Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2 I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords, and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd - hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to maintain myself... On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:40:02PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://people.debian.org/~hmh/ has a complete set of cyrus and postfix > packages backported from sid to woody. I use them on one of my personal Cheers Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Server Authentication
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: Mail Server Authentication > Hi all, > > I am currently working on installing a new mail server for a small number of > users (50-100). > > I do NOT want the user account details stored in /etc/passwd, and shadow. > I want to be able to have the following mail addresses as seperate mailboxes. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > etc... > > Using a database such as postgresql or mysql seems overkill for such a small > number of users. Only three users on this box need shell accounts. > > I also need support for 'SMTP Auth' (tls) > > After some investigation, it seems that the 'best'/ easiest solution is to use > Cyrus and Postfix. > > The issue seemed to be that everyone had there own authentication method, and > Cyrus provides both IMAP and POP3 saving me the trouble of installing yet another > program. > > So therefore I tried to get it all up and running using the SASLDB. > > Unfortunately there seems to be no STABLE version of cyrus-sasl. > http://people.debian.org/~hmh/ has a complete set of cyrus and postfix packages backported from sid to woody. I use them on one of my personal boxes, and they work just fine. It's a postfix + cyrus + jawmail + mysql + spamassassin + amavis setup, also for a small amount of users. We also used it at the ISP I work for for a small mailserver for one of our customers, and it's also working ok. Hope this helps, Teun Vink Luna.nl
Re: Mail Server Authentication
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: Mail Server Authentication > Hi all, > > I am currently working on installing a new mail server for a small number of > users (50-100). > > I do NOT want the user account details stored in /etc/passwd, and shadow. > I want to be able to have the following mail addresses as seperate mailboxes. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > etc... > > Using a database such as postgresql or mysql seems overkill for such a small > number of users. Only three users on this box need shell accounts. > > I also need support for 'SMTP Auth' (tls) > > After some investigation, it seems that the 'best'/ easiest solution is to use > Cyrus and Postfix. > > The issue seemed to be that everyone had there own authentication method, and > Cyrus provides both IMAP and POP3 saving me the trouble of installing yet another > program. > > So therefore I tried to get it all up and running using the SASLDB. > > Unfortunately there seems to be no STABLE version of cyrus-sasl. > http://people.debian.org/~hmh/ has a complete set of cyrus and postfix packages backported from sid to woody. I use them on one of my personal boxes, and they work just fine. It's a postfix + cyrus + jawmail + mysql + spamassassin + amavis setup, also for a small amount of users. We also used it at the ISP I work for for a small mailserver for one of our customers, and it's also working ok. Hope this helps, Teun Vink Luna.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 10:16, Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote: > [disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all] > > I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its > developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of > mails during their performance testing. what? per year? ;^) Sorry, couldn't resist. Hmmm. Mail servers. I add my voice to those recommending postfix - quite easy to configure, and very helpful people on the postfix mailing list (they really know what they are talking about). Your users will be very happy if you install a decent spamfilter - spamassassin is probably one of the best solutions, especially when 2.5 finally comes - just be sure that you never drop a mail without notice. Tag the mail as spam and let the users filter, or bounce it. If you have windows clients, a virus filter will be of some benefit, too (I don't have any recommendation there). cheers -- vbi -- featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/smtp signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Mail server
Russell Coker wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote: > > Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take > > surprisingly large amounts of disk space. > > Obviously such things differ depending on exactly who is > using the service and what they are doing. > > But my experience is that with modern disks a mail server > will run out of seek > performance before it runs out of space. > > [...] > > If a message delivery takes 10 disk writes (actually it > probably takes more > once you count writing to two files in the queue then writing > it to the spool > and deleting the queue files with lots of fsync() along the > way) then such a > machine can only deliver 13 messages per second. > > I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code > to not use > fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about > the reliability > issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry about). Well, qmail is an I/O hog. We have a (small) list-server at a customer which was set up with qmail (w/ el-cheapo 20 GB IDE HDDs). Could only send at ~512 kbit. Then replaced qmail with postfix, now it saturates the customer's T1 without problems... >From my experience, you should use a hardware raid controller w/ (at least) 1 UPM SCSI disks, and postfix+courier imap. CPU power should be no problem, it's seek I/O that matters. Just my 0.02 Euros Thomas
Re: Mail server
[disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all] I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of mails during their performance testing. I found it really easy to administrate and I am using MySQL for back-end. The tool is written in Java, so it might not be as fast as other mail servers, but to serve one thousand users, that should be largely sufficient. Cheers, Jerome On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 17:27, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a > mail server for N users? > > I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things > for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to > suit. \: > > I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. > > -- > Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CoffeeBreaks
Re: Mail server
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 10:16, Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote: > [disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all] > > I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its > developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of > mails during their performance testing. what? per year? ;^) Sorry, couldn't resist. Hmmm. Mail servers. I add my voice to those recommending postfix - quite easy to configure, and very helpful people on the postfix mailing list (they really know what they are talking about). Your users will be very happy if you install a decent spamfilter - spamassassin is probably one of the best solutions, especially when 2.5 finally comes - just be sure that you never drop a mail without notice. Tag the mail as spam and let the users filter, or bounce it. If you have windows clients, a virus filter will be of some benefit, too (I don't have any recommendation there). cheers -- vbi -- featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/smtp signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Mail server
Russell Coker wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote: > > Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take > > surprisingly large amounts of disk space. > > Obviously such things differ depending on exactly who is > using the service and what they are doing. > > But my experience is that with modern disks a mail server > will run out of seek > performance before it runs out of space. > > [...] > > If a message delivery takes 10 disk writes (actually it > probably takes more > once you count writing to two files in the queue then writing > it to the spool > and deleting the queue files with lots of fsync() along the > way) then such a > machine can only deliver 13 messages per second. > > I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code > to not use > fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about > the reliability > issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry about). Well, qmail is an I/O hog. We have a (small) list-server at a customer which was set up with qmail (w/ el-cheapo 20 GB IDE HDDs). Could only send at ~512 kbit. Then replaced qmail with postfix, now it saturates the customer's T1 without problems... >From my experience, you should use a hardware raid controller w/ (at least) 1 UPM SCSI disks, and postfix+courier imap. CPU power should be no problem, it's seek I/O that matters. Just my 0.02 Euros Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
[disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all] I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of mails during their performance testing. I found it really easy to administrate and I am using MySQL for back-end. The tool is written in Java, so it might not be as fast as other mail servers, but to serve one thousand users, that should be largely sufficient. Cheers, Jerome On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 17:27, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a > mail server for N users? > > I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things > for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to > suit. \: > > I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. > > -- > Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CoffeeBreaks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:27:56AM -0600, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a > mail server for N users? > > I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things > for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to > suit. \: > > I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. pretty nearly any relatively "modern" (as in less than 5 years old) machine will be more than capable of handling mail for 1000 users. spend between $500 and $1000 USD on a decent new machine and you'll have no problems. pay attention to the brand/model of the motherboard and the disk drive(s), they are the most important components. this won't give you any crash-proofing or crash-recovery - for that you need RAID 1, 0+1 or 5 disk (it's the only form of "backup" that is any use at all for extremely transient data like email)...which will add significantly to the price. my preference is for RAID-5 with a large non-volatile write-cache...very fast & very safe. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: Mail server
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:27:56AM -0600, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a > mail server for N users? > > I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things > for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to > suit. \: > > I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. pretty nearly any relatively "modern" (as in less than 5 years old) machine will be more than capable of handling mail for 1000 users. spend between $500 and $1000 USD on a decent new machine and you'll have no problems. pay attention to the brand/model of the motherboard and the disk drive(s), they are the most important components. this won't give you any crash-proofing or crash-recovery - for that you need RAID 1, 0+1 or 5 disk (it's the only form of "backup" that is any use at all for extremely transient data like email)...which will add significantly to the price. my preference is for RAID-5 with a large non-volatile write-cache...very fast & very safe. 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: Mail server
Lauchlin Wilkinson dijo: > As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering. Try Amavis on top of that! ;-) -- .''`. Girl, you gotta change your crazy ways, you hear me? : :' :Crazy by Aerosmith `. `'Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (Sid + 2.4.20 + Ext3) `-www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com
Re: Mail server
We have one machine that is currently handleing about that many users. It runs Debian 3.0 stable, sendmail, spamassassin (if anyone has a better spam fillter let me know), imap and pop, and the load average is rarely above 0.7. Most of the load comes from spamassassin. Which seems to be normal. At the moment that machine is a Duron 900 with 60GB worth of disk space adn 750MB RAM. 60GB is complete overkill for only 1000 users unless you are planing on giving them huge mail boxes. Which I wouldn't advise. Personaly I run cucipop because it seems a very fast pop server. At the moment I am running uw-imapd as we have few inap clients and the sposed speed isues that that server have I have not noticed. As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering. Lauch On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 03:27, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a > mail server for N users? > > I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things > for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to > suit. \: > > I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. > > -- > Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
Re: Mail server
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:59, Rich Puhek wrote: > Russell Coker wrote: > > I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use > > fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the > > reliability issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry > > about). > > Are you using mboxes under /var/spool/mail, or are you using Maildirs > under /home? Maildir's in home directories on a file system dedicated for the task. > If you're using the latter, wouldn't it be easier (and safer) to spread > your home dirs across multiple hard drives (or, more appropriately, > multiple RAID partitions on different disks?) Of course, IIRC, the 2650 > is a 2U server, so you're limited to what you can cram into the box. The 2650 contains 5 hard drives, that's a RAID-5 of 4 disks plus one hot-spare disk. Therefore only one partition for all the storage. > In your particular configuration, have you looked at the > advantages/disadvantages of having something like two disks in RAID 1 > and another 2 or more disks in another RAID set (1 or 5, depending on # > of drives) with the mail spool on one RAID set and the rest of the > filesystems (including /var) on the other? For only 4 active disks I don't expect any great performance benefit from that, and probably a performance loss at times when one array is busy and the other is idle. For 10+ disks I would probably look at a RAID-1 for the spool with the journal on a nvram device and the rest of the disks in a RAID-5 for storage. > Just asking because I have a similar setup to yours (one big HW RAID-5) > and have been wondering if that's the best way to go. If you have an excessive number of disks in the RAID-5 then the OS may not be able to send enough IO requests to it. I don't think that file systems in Linux (with the possible exception of XFS) could deliver good performance on a RAID array of 100 disks. Delivering good performance on 10 file systems that each have 10 disks is much easier to achieve if your data store can easily be striped over 10 file systems (as it can be for mail). A previous mail server I worked on had 192 disks divided into 10 RAID sets for mail storage for this reason. I am not sure how many of the 192 disks were used and how many were spare. I suspect that it was 180 disks in use and 12 spare. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page
Re: Mail server
Lauchlin Wilkinson dijo: > As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering. Try Amavis on top of that! ;-) -- .''`. Girl, you gotta change your crazy ways, you hear me? : :' :Crazy by Aerosmith `. `'Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (Sid + 2.4.20 + Ext3) `-www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
We have one machine that is currently handleing about that many users. It runs Debian 3.0 stable, sendmail, spamassassin (if anyone has a better spam fillter let me know), imap and pop, and the load average is rarely above 0.7. Most of the load comes from spamassassin. Which seems to be normal. At the moment that machine is a Duron 900 with 60GB worth of disk space adn 750MB RAM. 60GB is complete overkill for only 1000 users unless you are planing on giving them huge mail boxes. Which I wouldn't advise. Personaly I run cucipop because it seems a very fast pop server. At the moment I am running uw-imapd as we have few inap clients and the sposed speed isues that that server have I have not noticed. As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering. Lauch On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 03:27, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a > mail server for N users? > > I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things > for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to > suit. \: > > I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. > > -- > Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:59, Rich Puhek wrote: > Russell Coker wrote: > > I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use > > fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the > > reliability issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry > > about). > > Are you using mboxes under /var/spool/mail, or are you using Maildirs > under /home? Maildir's in home directories on a file system dedicated for the task. > If you're using the latter, wouldn't it be easier (and safer) to spread > your home dirs across multiple hard drives (or, more appropriately, > multiple RAID partitions on different disks?) Of course, IIRC, the 2650 > is a 2U server, so you're limited to what you can cram into the box. The 2650 contains 5 hard drives, that's a RAID-5 of 4 disks plus one hot-spare disk. Therefore only one partition for all the storage. > In your particular configuration, have you looked at the > advantages/disadvantages of having something like two disks in RAID 1 > and another 2 or more disks in another RAID set (1 or 5, depending on # > of drives) with the mail spool on one RAID set and the rest of the > filesystems (including /var) on the other? For only 4 active disks I don't expect any great performance benefit from that, and probably a performance loss at times when one array is busy and the other is idle. For 10+ disks I would probably look at a RAID-1 for the spool with the journal on a nvram device and the rest of the disks in a RAID-5 for storage. > Just asking because I have a similar setup to yours (one big HW RAID-5) > and have been wondering if that's the best way to go. If you have an excessive number of disks in the RAID-5 then the OS may not be able to send enough IO requests to it. I don't think that file systems in Linux (with the possible exception of XFS) could deliver good performance on a RAID array of 100 disks. Delivering good performance on 10 file systems that each have 10 disks is much easier to achieve if your data store can easily be striped over 10 file systems (as it can be for mail). A previous mail server I worked on had 192 disks divided into 10 RAID sets for mail storage for this reason. I am not sure how many of the 192 disks were used and how many were spare. I suspect that it was 180 disks in use and 12 spare. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
- Original Message - From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Colin Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Mail server > > If a message delivery takes 10 disk writes (actually it probably takes more > once you count writing to two files in the queue then writing it to the spool > and deleting the queue files with lots of fsync() along the way) then such a > machine can only deliver 13 messages per second. > > I'm running a number of mail servers with lots of spare disk space that are > hitting the message delivery limits, which prevents me adding more users. > I totally agree with Russel; disk speed is probably the most important limiting factor, not CPU speed or diskspace. To add some more numbers: I've just been doing some benchmarks to test different filesystem/mailserver combinations, testing with Russel's excellent Postal benchmark program. The best result on our testmachine (celeron 1700, 256 megs of RAM, 80 GB 7200 rpm IDE disk) have been a constant 30-35 messages per second. This was with a combination of XFS, Exim and Maildir storage, and with a maximum message size of 10K. A more realistic 100K maximum size still resulted in about 20-25 deliveries per second. These numbers are, however, only for mail delivery using SMTP; retrieving the mail using either POP or IMAP will add significant load. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
Russell Coker wrote: I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the reliability issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry about). Are you using mboxes under /var/spool/mail, or are you using Maildirs under /home? If you're using the latter, wouldn't it be easier (and safer) to spread your home dirs across multiple hard drives (or, more appropriately, multiple RAID partitions on different disks?) Of course, IIRC, the 2650 is a 2U server, so you're limited to what you can cram into the box. In your particular configuration, have you looked at the advantages/disadvantages of having something like two disks in RAID 1 and another 2 or more disks in another RAID set (1 or 5, depending on # of drives) with the mail spool on one RAID set and the rest of the filesystems (including /var) on the other? Just asking because I have a similar setup to yours (one big HW RAID-5) and have been wondering if that's the best way to go. --Rich _ Rich Puhek ETN Systems Inc. 2125 1st Ave East Hibbing MN 55746 tel: 218.262.1130 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a mail server for N users? I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to suit. \: I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. Depends more on the software than on the numer of users. And the number of users isn't really interesting. It's interesting how much traffic they generate. I was running sendmail+popper on a P2-500MHz, 512MB RAM with some users popping every minute - about 1 mails in/minute and 10 pop-connections/minute and had a load-average of about 1.0 - and in times with much bounces up to 20. Now we're running postfix with courier-pop/imap, AntiVir, Spamfilter on a P4-1.7GHz with 512MB RAM and an IPC-Vortex-SCSI-RAID-Controller for the spool. Also installed is a webmail, the User-Database comes from LDAP (also running local) and we have a load of nearly 0 - and slightly more traffic. I'd suggest you use qmail or postfix. On the postfix-mailinglist are some people with a _lot_ of traffic (thousands of messages / minute) and they handle this also with something with about 1GHz - mail-delivery isn't really a CPU-issue, it's highly I/O-based so fast disk give you much more performance than a faster CPU. regards -- \\\ ||| /// _\=/_ ( @ @ )(o o) +oOOo-(_)-oOOo--oOOo-(_)-oOOo--+ | Markus Schabel TGM - Die Schule der Technik www.tgm.ac.at | | IT-Service A-1200 Wien, Wexstrasse 19-23 net.tgm.ac.at | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel.: +43(1)33126/316 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax.: +43(1)33126/154 | | FSF Associate Member #597, Linux User #259595 (counter.li.org) | |oOOoYet Another Spam Trap: oOOo | | ()oOOo[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( ) oOOo | +\ (( )--\ ( -( )-+ \_) ) /\_) ) / (_/ (_/ Computers are like airconditioners: They stop working properly if you open windows. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote: > Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take surprisingly large > amounts of disk space. Obviously such things differ depending on exactly who is using the service and what they are doing. But my experience is that with modern disks a mail server will run out of seek performance before it runs out of space. The fastest drives (15000rpm) will take an average of 4ms for the disk to spin to the correct location to start a transfer in addition to the seek times for moving the heads. That gives a performance of something less than 100 IO operations per second per disk. I am working on a bunch of Dell PowerEdge 2650 machines with 4*U160 15000rpm SCSI disks in a hardware RAID-5 with a battery backed write-back cache. This gives a peak performance of about 130 disk writes per second. If a message delivery takes 10 disk writes (actually it probably takes more once you count writing to two files in the queue then writing it to the spool and deleting the queue files with lots of fsync() along the way) then such a machine can only deliver 13 messages per second. I'm running a number of mail servers with lots of spare disk space that are hitting the message delivery limits, which prevents me adding more users. I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the reliability issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry about). If you need more space then there's lots of good options nowadays. 200G IDE drives are getting cheap, I'll probably get a RAID-1 of them for my next home machine. 70G U160 SCSI drives give better performance, and I'm finding that their performance is a bottleneck not their size. Of course bigger drives tend to be faster if all other things are equal. For the servers I'm using I'd rather have 140G U160 drives, I'd still be using <70G of them, but the performance would be better. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a mail server for N users? I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to suit. \: I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. how long is a pice of string? a p120 with 32meg of ram can handle 30 users with ease. A p2-350 with 128 meg 200 with ease, depends on the use its put to. I doubt its linear scaling, give us some numbers. Thing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:27, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a > mail server for N users? > > I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things > for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to > suit. \: > > I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. It depends on who those users are and what they do. For 1000 users of a dial-up ISP you don't need anything special, no-one sells hardware that is so small it can't handle such a load. For 1000 users of a corporate LAN attaching Word and PowerPoint documents to their email you'll need a fairly decent server, get a couple of gigs of RAM and 4-5 disks in a RAID array and it should be fine. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail server
If its of any help, at my last firm, we had 1000 email domains all using different setup's their were 900 pop accounts checking their mail every 5 - 10 mins our set up was Sendmail 8.11 Debian 3.0 kernel 2.4.18 intel 550Mhz 256Mb Ram 40Gb Hd Machine load never above 0.7 Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a mail server for N users? I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to suit. \: I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail server
Your question is certainly quite vague, but here are a few things to think about.. What mail delivery program are you thinking of using and are you planning on providing pop3 and/or imap service? Imap requires more processing power to display the mail folders, but it depends on the software again. What kind of disk quota are you thinking of setting for your users? Email can take up a lot of space, and outgoing mail also needs to be stored in a queue. In terms of processing/memory requirements, I'd suggest pentium II (400MHz) upwards with at least 512MB ram. Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take surprisingly large amounts of disk space. The disks are probably the limiting factor in what hardware config you are looking at. Hope this helps, Colin Ellis Solution City Ltd http://www.solution-city.com -Original Message- From: Asher Densmore-Lynn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 February 2003 16:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mail server Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a mail server for N users? I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to suit. \: I'm looking at a thousand users, but anything would help. -- Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail relay attempts
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 at 11:32:53PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > PS: actually, the only other thing you could do is set firewall rules > blocking inbound tcp port 25. if your mail server is the primary MX for > your domain then you would also need a secondary MX and open the > firewall for just that machine. spammers will still try - the only real > difference is that you'll get entries in your kernel log rather than in > your mail log. if you do this, i recommend using iptables and DROP the > packet rather than REJECT itthis wastes the spammer's time while the To briefly add to what you can do you could email the contact responsible for the IP block in the InterNIC Whois DB. SOMETIMES you might get a reply You can also try [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Phil PGP/GPG Key: http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/ wget -O - http://www.zionlth.org/~plhofmei/ | gpg --import XP Source Code: #include #include #include #include #include #include //os_over="Windows 2000" os_ver="Windows XP"
Re: Mail relay attempts
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:12:51AM -0500, Daniel J. Rychlik wrote: > This is great, Just great. I run a mail server on dsl service > provided by mabell. I wrote a perl script that mails me some reports > on activities on my server everyday. I wake up this morning and I > have an alarm. > Obviously, non of these were relayed from my server because there are > only 2 private ip addresses that can use my server to relay mail. > But, alas I am bothered by these attempts and I hope that I can snip > this in the bud quick. > > Any suggestions would be of great importance and taken seriously. > Please advise. you have an SMTP server, therefore spammers *will* attempt to relay mail through it. guaranteed. sometimes only a few times per day, sometimes hundreds or thousands of attempts per day. get used to it. fortunately, your server sounds like it is not an open relay - you've done the right thing. there's nothing more you can do. you can't stop them trying. you've already done a good job in preventing them from relaying through you. btw, if your DSL service gives you a dynamic IP address you will end up on various DUL-type RBLs anyway. some mail-server operators do not want to receive mail direct from dynamic IP addresses. it's their server, their choice. craig PS: actually, the only other thing you could do is set firewall rules blocking inbound tcp port 25. if your mail server is the primary MX for your domain then you would also need a secondary MX and open the firewall for just that machine. spammers will still try - the only real difference is that you'll get entries in your kernel log rather than in your mail log. if you do this, i recommend using iptables and DROP the packet rather than REJECT itthis wastes the spammer's time while the connection times out. the downside to doing this is that spammers can relay spam to you via your secondary MX, in order to get around any local access rules you have. e.g. if you use a particular RBL service and your secondary MX doesn't, then you may as well not bother using the RBL. IMO, it's not worth having a secondary MX host unless either a) you control your secondary MX or b) your secondary MX has at least as good an anti-spam setup as you do. -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Re: mail queue's, ext3 data=journal and sync-mount
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:54, Philipp Schmidt wrote: > within this discussion, i got the idea to put an external journal for > the ext3fs on an raid1-volume the real data on a raid5, hopefully, when > writing the journal out to the disk having more data to be written an > once - this would be worth a try but i don't have the hardware to try > this and bad expirences with software raid5. Ideally if using data journalling then the transactions would be large enough to encompass entire stripes and remove most of the RAID-5 penalty for small writes. However having an external journal on a RAID-1 array that's used for nothing else would really help performance. Also make sure that you are using the fastest part of the disks used for the RAID-1 (use ZCAV to measure it). The start of the disks seems to always be the fastest for IDE disks, but apparently SCSI disks sometimes do things differently so a benchmark would be a good idea. For best performance investigate some sort of battery-backed RAM disk device. Another issue of RAID-5 is that when writing a stripe if the power fails it may write some blocks of the stripe but not all. Having journalled data and an external journal on a non-RAID-5 should solve that. -- I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software. If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the >From field.
Re: mail queue's, ext3 data=journal and sync-mount
On Tue, 2002-08-20 00:42:31 +0200, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:17, you wrote: > > True. Do you know why ext2 sync-mounted is so abysmally slow? I mean, > > our RAID was barely breaking a sweat, and bonnie++ was barely using 2-3% > > CPU, and yet, things just wouldn't go any faster, what's the bottleneck? > > Write back caching is simply a great way of improving performance. > > If you have a single hard drive then when writing to a file, even if the data > is all contiguous (the file is not fragmented) then when writing data for > each write the disk will need to spin to the correct location before data can > be written, for a 10K rpm drive that'll be an average of 3ms overhead per > chunk. Use a larger chunk size for Bonnie++ and performance should improve. > > Also for a RAID-5 it's even worse. To write to a sector on a RAID-5 you have > to do two reads and two writes minimum (or a read from all disks minus two > plus two writes) to get the correct parity. For a three disk RAID-5 that's > one read and two writes, for a five disk RAID-5 it's two reads and two writes. > > If you write the entire stripe at once (could be dozens of blocks depending > on the RAID setup) then it's little overhead when compared to a non-RAID > setup (RAID-5 should perform well for writing big files non-synchronously). > > Again make the chunk size larger on Bonnie++ and you should see a good > performance improvement. > > You might even discover that the performance of your RAID setup can be > measured in synchronous writes per second rather than any other metric. within this discussion, i got the idea to put an external journal for the ext3fs on an raid1-volume the real data on a raid5, hopefully, when writing the journal out to the disk having more data to be written an once - this would be worth a try but i don't have the hardware to try this and bad expirences with software raid5. AVE! phils... -- PHILIPP SCHMIDT / phils - - + - - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ` - - > http://home.pages.de/~phils/ --> ONLINE fuer Berlin & BRB? IN-Berlin! ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <-- Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur Qvtvgny Zvyraavhz Pbclevtug Npg ol oernxvat gur cebgrpgvba bs pbclevtugrq zngrevny. Vs lbh ner abg n pvgvmra be erfvqrag bs gur HFN, lbh evfx orvat vzcevfbarq naq uryq jvgubhg onvy sbe hc gb gjb jrrxf hcba ragel gb gur HFN (c) Copyright 2001 by Hartmann Schaffer (signature only) :wq
Re: mail queue's, ext3 data=journal and sync-mount
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:17, you wrote: > True. Do you know why ext2 sync-mounted is so abysmally slow? I mean, > our RAID was barely breaking a sweat, and bonnie++ was barely using 2-3% > CPU, and yet, things just wouldn't go any faster, what's the bottleneck? Write back caching is simply a great way of improving performance. If you have a single hard drive then when writing to a file, even if the data is all contiguous (the file is not fragmented) then when writing data for each write the disk will need to spin to the correct location before data can be written, for a 10K rpm drive that'll be an average of 3ms overhead per chunk. Use a larger chunk size for Bonnie++ and performance should improve. Also for a RAID-5 it's even worse. To write to a sector on a RAID-5 you have to do two reads and two writes minimum (or a read from all disks minus two plus two writes) to get the correct parity. For a three disk RAID-5 that's one read and two writes, for a five disk RAID-5 it's two reads and two writes. If you write the entire stripe at once (could be dozens of blocks depending on the RAID setup) then it's little overhead when compared to a non-RAID setup (RAID-5 should perform well for writing big files non-synchronously). Again make the chunk size larger on Bonnie++ and you should see a good performance improvement. You might even discover that the performance of your RAID setup can be measured in synchronous writes per second rather than any other metric. > > Ext3 with data=journal should be better than a synchronous mount in terms > > of data reliability as far as I understand it. If you have a synchronous > > mounted file system and you write 8K of data then if the write succeeds > > then it's all on disk. But if the system reboots in the middle then what > > happened? Did the file get extended but have no data written? Did 4K of > > the 8K get written because the two allocation blocks were at different > > ends of the disk? Data journalling should journal both the meta-data and > > the file data at the same time, so the operations of extending the file > > (meta-data change) and that of writing two blocks of data will all be in > > the same transaction which will be atomic. > > I see your logic here and it certainly seems sound to me. I think the > BSD folk are really invested in their way of doing things (FFS w/soft > updates) and don't give the new stuff (journaling) a chance. Oh well, > their loss. I was under the impression that softupdates gives the same result as a meta-data journal but not tied to one region of disk. Maybe somewhat like the ReiserFS 4 feature "wandering logs". This could be extended to support data journalling, but at the cost of fragmentation... -- I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software. If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the >From field.
Re: mail queue's, ext3 data=journal and sync-mount
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:51, you wrote: > reply to my last email? I'm sorry to bother, but I'm trying to find a I missed that, but it seems you raise the same issues here. > suitable filesystem and mount options for a qmail queue. DJB says no to > ext2 unless it's sync mounted, but I found abysmal performance this way. Most people find that they can get enough reliability from ext2 without synchronous mounting. People like DJB say "oh the horror, you might lose a single email some time", but most admins don't care too much. As a general rule the larger the ISP the more cavalier they are about losing email. An ISP running 1M accounts probably won't be bothered about losing the data from 10,000 accounts on occasion... Of course we don't want to be like that, but losing an occasional email in an fsck isn't such a big deal. There is also the outside possibility that a power failure on a busy drive could leave the file system so stuffed that FSCK does no good. I've seen a lot of Linux machines treated badly, with power failures, flakey hardware and kernel panics, I've only had to use debugfs on a few occasions (and they were due to a combination of a kernel bug and a fsck bug - which has since been fixed). Also the debugfs was for a cosmetic thing (if I didn't mind a few dud files in lost+found I could have just ignored it). I've never lost a file system through ext2. But anyway ext2 is old now so don't use it. Ext3 with data=journal should be better than a synchronous mount in terms of data reliability as far as I understand it. If you have a synchronous mounted file system and you write 8K of data then if the write succeeds then it's all on disk. But if the system reboots in the middle then what happened? Did the file get extended but have no data written? Did 4K of the 8K get written because the two allocation blocks were at different ends of the disk? Data journalling should journal both the meta-data and the file data at the same time, so the operations of extending the file (meta-data change) and that of writing two blocks of data will all be in the same transaction which will be atomic. Of course a mail server will perform a variety of tricks so that these things shouldn't be an issue and the features of data journalling should not be required. Writing a mail server would be easier if you could rely on a data=journal mounted system! > Do you know if ext3 with data=journal would be sufficient? I believe it's more than sufficient, but I'm not a true expert on this. I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong. -- I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software. If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the >From field.
Re: mail queue's, ext3 data=journal and sync-mount
> Rumour has it that data=journal can actually improve performance in some > situations. If a program is writing lots of small files synchronously (quite > common for a mail server that has one tiny control file for every message, > and the average message file isn't too big) then journalling the data allows > for synchronous writes to a small (8M to 32M) region on disk (which is really > fast) and it'll then be written to it's final destination with the write-back > caching enabled which allows writes to be ordered for good performance. Not rumour... I confirm I have seen the benchmarks for this somewhere. It was in a table format... it compared EXT3 with the various options, REISERFS which various options... too bad I can't remember the webpage, aye? But i am sure it is there somewhere, so I'm sure if you search long enough it'll pop up in google.com or alltheweb.com > Without the data=journal option ReiserFS is rumoured to beat Ext3, with > data=journal ext3 should win. > I would be interested in seeing benchmark data. Also one thing I have been > thinking of doing is benchmarking Qmail vs Postfix... ;) Can I see a mail war brewing? ;-)
Re: mail queue's, ext3 data=journal and sync-mount
I decided that this message is better for Debian-ISP, so I replied to the list and BCC'd you. I hope you don't object. On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:20, you wrote: > I'm having some trouble finding info on this stuff and found a > knowledgeable-sounding post of yours on debian-isp. Please ignore if > this is inappropriate. > > I'm going to setup a debian woody system for qmail (and others) and was > hoping to secure the qmail queue a bit. For some reason, sync mounted > ext2 and 3 is abysmally slow. How does FFS do it? anyway, do you know > if ext3 mounted data=journal (or any other way) is sufficient? I have not done any serious tests on such things. If you want to do such tests then I recommend my Postal benchmark program (it's in Debian). But don't try the IMAP option - I haven't finished coding it. Rumour has it that data=journal can actually improve performance in some situations. If a program is writing lots of small files synchronously (quite common for a mail server that has one tiny control file for every message, and the average message file isn't too big) then journalling the data allows for synchronous writes to a small (8M to 32M) region on disk (which is really fast) and it'll then be written to it's final destination with the write-back caching enabled which allows writes to be ordered for good performance. I haven't tested this but it all sounds logical. Without the data=journal option ReiserFS is rumoured to beat Ext3, with data=journal ext3 should win. I don't know much about FFS. I would be interested in seeing benchmark data. Also one thing I have been thinking of doing is benchmarking Qmail vs Postfix... ;) Russell Coker
Re: mail-config?
Hello! El jue, 01-08-2002 a las 22:44, Donovan Baarda escribió: ... > courier-ssl, courier-base, courier-authdaemon. If you follow all the > dependancies, courier-imap-ssl includes all the dependancies of uw-imapd > except libc-client-ssl2001, which is 913kB... ... > However, I still feel a little uneasy about running a seperate authdaemon > and serverdaemon just for pop/imap. ... If you worry about used space and running lots of different software consider qmail and pop3 to get mail off to the local network. It does also work very well with dial-up lines, usind maildirsmtp. You get all parts from one "provider" and the programs are astonishing small. Best regards, Jorge-León
Re: mail-config?
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:12:43AM -0400, Brian Nelson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) writes: > > > Though I use uw-imapd instead of Courier. The general consensus is Courier > > is better, but I went with uw-imapd because it was "lighter", and I had > > legacy non-Maildir mailboxes. > > > > Courier is nearly 1MB installed including ssl and support packages, compared > > to 350K for uw-imapd-ssl. Courier uses a seperate authdaemon and > > serverdaemon, whereas uw-imapd uses the normal inetd. Courier looked like > > overkill for my system. > > But how big are UW's c-client library files? I'm pretty sure that, > including the protocol libraries, uw-imap ends up being larger than > courier. I was using the installed sizes as reported for the packages. In the case of uw-imapd, there were no dependancies that were not already installed on my system so I did not include them; libc-client-ssl2001, libc6, libpam0g, libssl0.9.6, openssl. For courier-imap-ssl, there were several packages that I would have to install just for courier support so these were included; courier-imap, courier-ssl, courier-base, courier-authdaemon. If you follow all the dependancies, courier-imap-ssl includes all the dependancies of uw-imapd except libc-client-ssl2001, which is 913kB... Hmm, looks like you are right... the only things on my system using libc-client-ssl2001 is uw-imapd-ssl and ipopd-ssl. If you look at a combined courier-pop-ssl+courier-imap-ssl vs ipopd-ssl+uw-imapd-ssl, they come out pretty much the same, with courier perhaps being slightly in front. However, I still feel a little uneasy about running a seperate authdaemon and serverdaemon just for pop/imap. -- -- ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key --
Re: mail-config?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) writes: > Though I use uw-imapd instead of Courier. The general consensus is Courier > is better, but I went with uw-imapd because it was "lighter", and I had > legacy non-Maildir mailboxes. > > Courier is nearly 1MB installed including ssl and support packages, compared > to 350K for uw-imapd-ssl. Courier uses a seperate authdaemon and > serverdaemon, whereas uw-imapd uses the normal inetd. Courier looked like > overkill for my system. But how big are UW's c-client library files? I'm pretty sure that, including the protocol libraries, uw-imap ends up being larger than courier. -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: mail-config?
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:49:25PM -0600, Lance Levsen wrote: > > > What should I install to get mail to work? > > I have a small network: > > -1 debian gateway > > -2 debian boxes > > -4 Win98 PC (sorry, the kids are teached at school with word, excel etc.) > > > Frank. > > I'd suggest Postfix/Courier IMAP. If you have the mail hosted > elsewhere on an POP or IMAP server then add fetchmail to get > the mail and dump it into postfix. The clients should be > able to handle logging into your imap to use their mail. ditto. Though I use uw-imapd instead of Courier. The general consensus is Courier is better, but I went with uw-imapd because it was "lighter", and I had legacy non-Maildir mailboxes. Courier is nearly 1MB installed including ssl and support packages, compared to 350K for uw-imapd-ssl. Courier uses a seperate authdaemon and serverdaemon, whereas uw-imapd uses the normal inetd. Courier looked like overkill for my system. If I was starting from scratch, I'd probably go with Maildir and Courier because of it's glowing reports. > If you have mail directed to you then you'll probably have to > setup DNS/Postfix/IMAP. > > I'd also suggest procmail just so each user can do what they > want with their own mail delivery. ditto. For DNS I'm using pdnsd, which is a light caching dns proxy with persistant cache contents so it can serve cached DNS contents from bootup without bringing up a link. It has good support for casual dialup, though I'm actually using it for a perm link. The other thing it does that is nice is it can serve up the contents of /etc/hosts via DNS, allowing you to very simply create your own private DNS system, ideal for local masq'ed networks. -- -- ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key --
Re: mail-config?
> What should I install to get mail to work? > I have a small network: > -1 debian gateway > -2 debian boxes > -4 Win98 PC (sorry, the kids are teached at school with word, excel etc.) > Frank. I'd suggest Postfix/Courier IMAP. If you have the mail hosted elsewhere on an POP or IMAP server then add fetchmail to get the mail and dump it into postfix. The clients should be able to handle logging into your imap to use their mail. If you have mail directed to you then you'll probably have to setup DNS/Postfix/IMAP. I'd also suggest procmail just so each user can do what they want with their own mail delivery. Cheers, -- Lance Levsen, Systems Administrator, PWGroup - Saskatoon
Re: mail-config?
Hi, For me a mix of qmail and fetchmail worked beautifully until I got a static (at which point fetchmail was no longer required). I did it all with one machine but if you really want you could use two (though I don't see the point). Fetchmail would retrieve the messages when connected and qmail would handle the delivery. All clients would then connect to that box and retrieve their mail. Hope this helps, Todd On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Debian people. > > reading this list for a few weeks I want to put foreward this mail-question. > > What should I install to get mail to work? > I have a small network: > -1 debian gateway > -2 debian boxes > -4 Win98 PC (sorry, the kids are teached at school with word, excel etc.) > > At the moment one of the Win98 collects all the mail through the > debian-gateway. > > What I want is that the gateway collects the mail from the ISP every time the > dial-in connection gets up > and every PC collect its mail from the gateway (running iptables) when they > question the gateway for it. > The gateway is NOT running as a DNS-server and uses NAT. > > What software needs to be installed on each machine? > exim or postfix on the gateway? > 1 debianbox runs kde, is this sufficient for collecting and sending mail? > 1 debian box runs only bash/csh. What do I put here. > What should be configured/changed on the WinPC's. > > In short. I don't ask how to configure exim/postfix/whatever but only what > software to put where. > > Thank you all for your patients and help. > Frank. > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Mail question
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 16:50, Craig wrote: > Hi Fellows > > Has anyone succeeded in setting up a multi-user mailbox that > exchange 2000 retrieves mail from using exim ?> I am having > the problem that when exchange retrieves the messages, its > resending them again which causes the recipients of the > original mail to receive duplicates. > > Any suggestions would be welcomed. > I've seen this happen with exchange pop'ing mail off a qmail+vpopmail server. I eventually (after a few hundred MB of email, which the client paid for in their data traffic charges) figured out that the original sender sent an email to a local alias, the local alias expanded and got delivered to our server, then the exchange server retrieved the email and didn't know who the To: address was, so it re-sent the email to the To: address, which was an alias on someone else's server, which expanded the alias... (you get the idea, looping message!) I'd suggest a very large hammer aimed at the exchange box, or the admin of said exchange box ;-) -- Joel Michael| Phone: +61 7 3367 3555 Systems Administrator | Fax: +61 7 3367 3544 WorldHosting.org Pty. Ltd. | Mobile: +61 408 336 728 http://www.worldhosting.org/| Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail question
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 16:50, Craig wrote: > Hi Fellows > > Has anyone succeeded in setting up a multi-user mailbox that > exchange 2000 retrieves mail from using exim ?> I am having > the problem that when exchange retrieves the messages, its > resending them again which causes the recipients of the > original mail to receive duplicates. > > Any suggestions would be welcomed. > I've seen this happen with exchange pop'ing mail off a qmail+vpopmail server. I eventually (after a few hundred MB of email, which the client paid for in their data traffic charges) figured out that the original sender sent an email to a local alias, the local alias expanded and got delivered to our server, then the exchange server retrieved the email and didn't know who the To: address was, so it re-sent the email to the To: address, which was an alias on someone else's server, which expanded the alias... (you get the idea, looping message!) I'd suggest a very large hammer aimed at the exchange box, or the admin of said exchange box ;-) -- Joel Michael| Phone: +61 7 3367 3555 Systems Administrator | Fax: +61 7 3367 3544 WorldHosting.org Pty. Ltd. | Mobile: +61 408 336 728 http://www.worldhosting.org/| Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:37, Jason Lim wrote: > > Some of my friends even take hidden tape recorders into meetings. > > I thought that, legally, one would have to actually warn the person being > recorded that a recording was taking place. I know that when I phone a > number of large companies, they say specifically "this call is being > monitored for quality assurance purposes" or "for training purposes" or > something. I don't think it is legal for them to secretly record messages. > But again, if it isn't done for malicious purposes... well... hum... its > still debatable ;-) The use of a hidden recorder can only be considered as "malicious", unless you are the one with the recorder. > But laws regarding email are still pretty shady at the moment... i > would've thought a short statement like "This message is private and > confidential" would at least help to clarify and make obvious the fact > that you don't want people giving this information out to third parties > (make that competitors and such), and allow a company to "more easily" > enact any applicable non-disclosure laws. If it's added manually yes. If it's automatically appended to everything then it can be safely ignored. > We certainly wouldn't want a client to sending the details of our private > deal with them to a competitor or other clients. Imagine what would happen > then! "Hey, you gave him 2U more space than us for the same price!" hehe Well you need to have a specific clause in the contract if you want that to happen. But no-one sues their customers so as long as your customer pays their bills then you can't do anything about it. Best thing to do is tell them that you're giving them an extra good deal and that if they tell anyone then they get the "standard rate" next time. Tell that to every customer including the ones who pay more. ;) -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46, Jason Lim wrote: > > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want > > that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or > > something like that? > > Tough luck. > > If a representative of vendor for a project I'm working on sends me an email > then I will forward it to my colleagues if it is appropriate. When at a > meeting with a vendor I'll read their notes (I'm reasonably good at reading > upside down). Unfortunately that is one skill I have not yet perfected ;-) > Some of my friends even take hidden tape recorders into meetings. I thought that, legally, one would have to actually warn the person being recorded that a recording was taking place. I know that when I phone a number of large companies, they say specifically "this call is being monitored for quality assurance purposes" or "for training purposes" or something. I don't think it is legal for them to secretly record messages. But again, if it isn't done for malicious purposes... well... hum... its still debatable ;-) > > These things only become an issue when you have a rival consulting company on > site and they get a copy of the info. But the usual laws and contracts about > non-disclosure are good enough to deal with such situations. A sig line > really won't help. > But laws regarding email are still pretty shady at the moment... i would've thought a short statement like "This message is private and confidential" would at least help to clarify and make obvious the fact that you don't want people giving this information out to third parties (make that competitors and such), and allow a company to "more easily" enact any applicable non-disclosure laws. We certainly wouldn't want a client to sending the details of our private deal with them to a competitor or other clients. Imagine what would happen then! "Hey, you gave him 2U more space than us for the same price!" hehe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46, Jason Lim wrote: > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want > that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or > something like that? Tough luck. If a representative of vendor for a project I'm working on sends me an email then I will forward it to my colleagues if it is appropriate. When at a meeting with a vendor I'll read their notes (I'm reasonably good at reading upside down). Some of my friends even take hidden tape recorders into meetings. These things only become an issue when you have a rival consulting company on site and they get a copy of the info. But the usual laws and contracts about non-disclosure are good enough to deal with such situations. A sig line really won't help. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often > > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where mail is > > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients (software, > > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they would notice > > is they are not getting any new mail for a short while (while you fix the > > There's worse, mail that has been delivered before the crash but after the > last time the user checked mail or the administrator make a backup will be > lost. Well, true. I never said it was the best way... as you said, RAID is the ideal solution :-) > > Everyone hates those ultra long *confidentiality, security, legal, blah > > blah* sigs. I wonder what the best, short, clear, legalistic sig is. > > Obviously not for sending to a mail list, but for individual > > emails. > > Best to write a short note yourself if the message has some special > requirements. The only boiler-plate disclaimer that'sany good is the "I am > representing my own opinions not those of my employer" line. > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or something like that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often > > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where mail is > > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients (software, > > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they would notice > > is they are not getting any new mail for a short while (while you fix the > > There's worse, mail that has been delivered before the crash but after the > last time the user checked mail or the administrator make a backup will be > lost. Well, true. I never said it was the best way... as you said, RAID is the ideal solution :-) > > Everyone hates those ultra long *confidentiality, security, legal, blah > > blah* sigs. I wonder what the best, short, clear, legalistic sig is. > > Obviously not for sending to a mail list, but for individual > > emails. > > Best to write a short note yourself if the message has some special > requirements. The only boiler-plate disclaimer that'sany good is the "I am > representing my own opinions not those of my employer" line. > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or something like that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:18, Jason Lim wrote: > > RAID is mandatory for a mail server. Backups are difficult for mail > > servers > > > as the data is changing all the time, and they'll never be complete. > > > > Having a single drive failure lose all your data is unacceptable. > > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where mail is > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients (software, > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they would notice > is they are not getting any new mail for a short while (while you fix the There's worse, mail that has been delivered before the crash but after the last time the user checked mail or the administrator make a backup will be lost. > Everyone hates those ultra long *confidentiality, security, legal, blah > blah* sigs. I wonder what the best, short, clear, legalistic sig is. > Obviously not for sending to a mail list, but for individual > emails. Best to write a short note yourself if the message has some special requirements. The only boiler-plate disclaimer that'sany good is the "I am representing my own opinions not those of my employer" line. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:17, Chris Jenks wrote: > > I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any experience > > with them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place > > after all. > > RAID is mandatory for a mail server. Backups are difficult for mail servers > as the data is changing all the time, and they'll never be complete. > > Having a single drive failure lose all your data is unacceptable. Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where mail is stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients (software, i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they would notice is they are not getting any new mail for a short while (while you fix the server). People sending email will have the mail delayed, but most mail software (mta?) will keep trying for nearly up to a week, depending on software. So I guess that unless lots of users are using IMAP, then it won't be TOO bad if the disk the mail spool is on dies. > Software RAID in Linux works quite well. The Debian install disks don't > support it, but if you check the archives of this list you should find a > message from me describing how to solve that. > Yeap, with your guidance I've done that. Did it a while ago for a client. Also had problems with the boot sequence where if the disk on the first IDE link died, it would just sit there. Hardware RAID solved that problem. But I suppose it really depends how the hard disk is broken... in my individual case, the computer no longer could boot up past that point (i think something may have been wrong with the disk spindle motor)... but YMMV. > If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines > of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do > whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by > posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. > Everyone hates those ultra long *confidentiality, security, legal, blah blah* sigs. I wonder what the best, short, clear, legalistic sig is. Obviously not for sending to a mail list, but for individual emails. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
At 05:34 PM 3/18/02, you wrote: > > I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any >experience with > > them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place >after all. >Most of us work in ISP/hosting type environments, so all your >considerations have already been considered by us before. I got help here >about optimizing outgoing email servers a while ago, and got lots of good >advice and stuff here (also discovered some new, previously undocumented >speed optimization techniques). So its all good for learning and helping >each other :-) I've always worked on the back bone end. First at AGIS (before, durring and after the spam days) and then at Global Crossing. This is a little different from what I'm used to. This whole thing started in a Subway over dinner last night. I was going to ask the Inet-Access people about it, but I had already decided to use Woody and Exim (due to money and familiarity with Debian) and didn't want a bunch of replies saying MTA X is better. I figured that this list would be less biased, and I wouldn't get as many flames. Thanks for the help everyone Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:17, Chris Jenks wrote: > I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any experience > with them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place > after all. RAID is mandatory for a mail server. Backups are difficult for mail servers as the data is changing all the time, and they'll never be complete. Having a single drive failure lose all your data is unacceptable. Software RAID in Linux works quite well. The Debian install disks don't support it, but if you check the archives of this list you should find a message from me describing how to solve that. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> > I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any experience with > them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place after all. > > Thanks > Chris Most of us work in ISP/hosting type environments, so all your considerations have already been considered by us before. I got help here about optimizing outgoing email servers a while ago, and got lots of good advice and stuff here (also discovered some new, previously undocumented speed optimization techniques). So its all good for learning and helping each other :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
At 02:08 PM 3/18/02, Russell Coker wrote: >On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:12, Jason Lim wrote: > > > > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support > > > > > > It's WAY above 500. :-) > > > > It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might > > have a bit of trouble coping with 500 (or lets say 200-300) simultaneous > > and concurrent users trying to check their email at the beginning of the > > work day. > >That depends on how many messages are waiting, whether the users leave mail >on the server, and whether they use mbox storage. > >If users leave mail on the server in mbox format, and they are emailing >around Word files etc then a new P3 machine with 1G of RAM and a RAID setup >of fast hard drives will have big problems. > >If the users do only plain-ascii mail with no big attachments, don't leave >their mail on the server, have a fast connection to the server, and Maildir >is used then 500 people logging on in a period of 10 minutes should work on a >486-33 with 64M of RAM. I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any experience with them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place after all. Thanks Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
At 01:12 PM 3/18/02, you wrote: > > > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support > > > > It's WAY above 500. :-) > > > >It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might >have a bit of trouble coping with 500 (or lets say 200-300) simultaneous >and concurrent users trying to check their email at the beginning of the >work day. I took that thought into account, I was thinking along the lines of a P3 400 with at least 384 megs of memory. Maybe over kill but I would rather have over kill than a dead mail server. Most of the people are factory line workers, so I don't really think that they will all log in at once. I'm not even sure why their management wants to give them all work email accounts. There are two offices with 500 (that gives me some room to play with actually, closer to 450) people in each one. I'm not sure if one mail server could handle it or not (never set one up before). I was also thinking of putting one in each shop for deversity. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:12, Jason Lim wrote: > > > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support > > > > It's WAY above 500. :-) > > It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might > have a bit of trouble coping with 500 (or lets say 200-300) simultaneous > and concurrent users trying to check their email at the beginning of the > work day. That depends on how many messages are waiting, whether the users leave mail on the server, and whether they use mbox storage. If users leave mail on the server in mbox format, and they are emailing around Word files etc then a new P3 machine with 1G of RAM and a RAID setup of fast hard drives will have big problems. If the users do only plain-ascii mail with no big attachments, don't leave their mail on the server, have a fast connection to the server, and Maildir is used then 500 people logging on in a period of 10 minutes should work on a 486-33 with 64M of RAM. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
> > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support > > It's WAY above 500. :-) > It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might have a bit of trouble coping with 500 (or lets say 200-300) simultaneous and concurrent users trying to check their email at the beginning of the work day. > > 2 Could someone point me to a good pointer / how-to for this. > > If you "apt-get install exim", the configuration process will ask you > enough questions to set up the basics. Then I'd hit the Exim docs. > > Jeremy > -- > Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail Servers
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:28:12AM -0500, Chris Jenks wrote: > I hate asking this, but I thought that this would be the fastest > way to get the answer. > > I may be setting up a mail server for a factory. From what little > I know so far, it will be for all a mail server for all five hundred > employees. (one in each location) so they can check work > related email. I was thinking about using woody, but have > the following 2 questions. > > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support It's WAY above 500. :-) > 2 Could someone point me to a good pointer / how-to for this. If you "apt-get install exim", the configuration process will ask you enough questions to set up the basics. Then I'd hit the Exim docs. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail
Thanks for all your suggestions. Qmail and vpopper I was sort of familiar with... looking (much) harder I see that's what I need. Thanks a million. (: -- Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Mail
Thanks for all your suggestions. Qmail and vpopper I was sort of familiar with... looking (much) harder I see that's what I need. Thanks a million. (: -- Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail
> Does anyone have the slightest clue how to host mail for multiple domains > such that every domain has a unique namespace? Thinking about the matter, > I realized I don't quite know how to accomplish this. Postfix virtual domains operate like this by default, however you can make it operate like sendmail virtual domains if you want to. - Jeff -- "It's only ironic because it's true." - Reflexive irony, overheard
Re: Mail
> Does anyone have the slightest clue how to host mail for multiple domains > such that every domain has a unique namespace? Thinking about the matter, > I realized I don't quite know how to accomplish this. Postfix virtual domains operate like this by default, however you can make it operate like sendmail virtual domains if you want to. - Jeff -- "It's only ironic because it's true." - Reflexive irony, overheard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mail
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 08:31:20PM -0600, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Does anyone have the slightest clue how to host mail for multiple domains > such that every domain has a unique namespace? Thinking about the matter, I > realized I don't quite know how to accomplish this. > I use qmail, vpopmail and qmailadmin to do it. Each user is uniquely identified by the e-mail address. So, I can have my own e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and another one, [EMAIL PROTECTED], on the same server. Bao
Re: Mail
I use exim, which has ample documentation on how to do this. Basically, I have a passwd. for several different domains, theres no need for a matching shadow (unless I plan to have "real" accounts for the people). Exim justmakes sure the user exists in the appropriate passwd file, and we have a different spool dir for each domain. The term is "Virtual Domains" I believe, here a link to the exim docs: http://www.exim.org/exim-html-3.30/doc/html/spec.html Check out section 43. Hope this helps. On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 08:31:20PM -0600, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote: > Does anyone have the slightest clue how to host mail for multiple domains > such that every domain has a unique namespace? Thinking about the matter, I > realized I don't quite know how to accomplish this. > > The smallest pointer will be appreciated -- I can figure it out, I think, > once I know where to look. > > -- > Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Nick Jennings
