Michael Sims wrote:
> I'm having a strange problem with pop3d connections hanging that I
> was hoping to get some feedback on (system vitals are at the bottom
> of this message).
[...]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# strace -p23604
> Process 23604 attached - interrupt to quit
> write(1, "/mYYyaenY9KvRwA
Michael Sims wrote:
>> I'm having a strange problem with pop3d connections hanging that I
>> was hoping to get some feedback on (system vitals are at the bottom
>> of this message).
> [...]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# strace -p23604
>> Process 23604 attached - interrupt to quit
>> write(1, "/mYYyae
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Michael Sims wrote:
> Can anyone (developers?) tell me if there are significant changes in
> either socket handling or the pop3 daemon between latest 2.1.x and
> latest 2.2.x that may affect this issue? Should I try to upgrade from
> 2.1.16 to 2.2.6 to try and resolve this? T
Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Michael Sims wrote:
>> Can anyone (developers?) tell me if there are significant changes in
>> either socket handling or the pop3 daemon between latest 2.1.x and
>> latest 2.2.x that may affect this issue?
[...]
> I don't believe there is anything that w
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> I don't believe there is anything that will substantially change how POP
> works if what you're seeing is a write() call that just blocks forever,
> no.
Shouldn't cyrus timeout the client eventually, and unlock the mailbox?
--
"One disk to rule them
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Rob Siemborski wrote:
I don't believe there is anything that will substantially change how POP
works if what you're seeing is a write() call that just blocks forever,
no.
Shouldn't cyrus timeout the client eventually, and
Michael Sims wrote:
> Rob Siemborski wrote:
>> I don't believe there is anything that will substantially change how
>> POP works if what you're seeing is a write() call that just blocks
>> forever, no.
>
> Thanks for the answer. A few weeks ago our network manager installed
> a intrusion detection
--On Monday, July 12, 2004 17:16 -0500 Michael Sims
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As promised, I'm following up to the list on the status of this problem,
in case anyone has an issue like this in the future. It does appear to
have been caused by our intrusion detection device. Our network manager
Michael Loftis wrote:
> --On Monday, July 12, 2004 17:16 -0500 Michael Sims
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As promised, I'm following up to the list on the status of this
>> problem, in case anyone has an issue like this in the future. It
>> does appear to have been caused by our intrusion dete
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Michael Loftis wrote:
--On Monday, July 12, 2004 17:16 -0500 Michael Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As promised, I'm following up to the list on the status of this problem,
in case anyone has an issue like this in the future. It does appear to
have been caused by our intrus
10 matches
Mail list logo
