On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:39:22 -0800
Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm being stoopid or something.
Nahh, its just a confusion between the default phraseology under
Sendmail being different from the phraseology under Postfix.
> Supposing I have a list server, which I wish to del
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:02:07PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:39:39 -0800
> Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/18/01 5:06 AM, "Tass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> disable_dns_lookups = yes
>
> >> I have found this to be no real change. On a PIII
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:39:39 -0800
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/18/01 5:06 AM, "Tass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> disable_dns_lookups = yes
>> I have found this to be no real change. On a PIII-500 with 512M
>> I am getting 100K-120K/hr on a T1 connection with avg mess
I'd like to emphasize that YMMV. As Chuq notes, don't take my numbers or
anybody else's and apply them blindly. What fits one site will fit
badly on others. Change one thing at a time, in some orderly way that
lets you evaluate impact of changes.
Important things I can think of immediately tha
On 12/18/01 5:06 AM, "Tass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> default_process_limit = 150
>
> If you have 512M of Ram set it to 200, it will give you a lot of room.
Maybe. Maybe not.
One of the things you need to do when setting up your MTA is figure out what
your network can take. It makes no se
At 06:01 PM 12/17/01 -0800, Dan Wilder wrote:
...
>With these changes in place, a K6-350 with 128M RAM delivers
>messages averaging perhaps 3K over a medium-speed DSL,
>without entirely saturating the DSL, at load average below
>2.0, without impinging on swap. It'll reach 20,000
>recipients in a
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Dan Wilder wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 05:22:37PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> To get the number of SMTP processes up, change "default_process_limit"
> in main.cf.
>
> default_process_limit = 150
If you have 512M of Ram set it to 200, it will give you a lot of room.
Dan,
Have stolen your messages almost verbatim and put them into the postfix
tuning part of the FAQ. [I'm currently aiming to get content on there -
someone or even me can clean these up later]
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq06.004.htp
--
[ Nigel Metheringham
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 20:33:23 -0800
Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 06:39:54PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:01:56 -0800 Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> Without those changes in place (more exctly, using the
>> Debian/Linux defaul
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 21:05:19 -0800 (PST)
alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My Mailman configuration uses Unix for running Mailman, and
> Windows 2000 SMTP Server for outbound email. I doubt many (if
> any) other people are using this configuration, but if people are
> interested in more
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Dan Wilder wrote:
> The DSL does get to be pretty much of a nuisance to run vi on
> over an ssh connection, when the list mail is going out.
I used to have issues with this, but my solution was to turn on
dummynet (http://cs.baylor.edu/~donahoo/tools/dummy/) on my firewall
an
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 06:39:54PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:01:56 -0800
> Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With these changes in place, a K6-350 with 128M RAM delivers
> > messages averaging perhaps 3K over a medium-speed DSL, without
> > entirely saturating
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:01:56 -0800
Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With these changes in place, a K6-350 with 128M RAM delivers
> messages averaging perhaps 3K over a medium-speed DSL, without
> entirely saturating the DSL, at load average below 2.0, without
> impinging on swap. It'll r
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 05:22:37PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> At 04:26 PM 12/17/01 -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> >On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:32:39 -0800
> >Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone posted a few days or so ago asking about list sizes. Was
> >> there any response to th
At 04:26 PM 12/17/01 -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:32:39 -0800
>Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Someone posted a few days or so ago asking about list sizes. Was
>> there any response to that query?
>
>Yup, and its already in the FAQ.
http://www.python.org/cgi-b
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:32:39 -0800
Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone posted a few days or so ago asking about list sizes. Was
> there any response to that query?
Yup, and its already in the FAQ.
--
J C Lawrence
-(*)Satan, oscillate my m
On 12/17/01 3:32 PM, "Bill Moseley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a list of about 11,000 currently on Solaris/Sendmail/listproc that
> I'm thinking of moving to Linux/(qmail|Postfix)/mailman. Only one message
> a week is sent.
>
> Anyone running a list that big on Mailman? Any special
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Bill Moseley wrote:
> Someone posted a few days or so ago asking about list sizes. Was there any
> response to that query?
>
> I've got a list of about 11,000 currently on Solaris/Sendmail/listproc that
> I'm thinking of moving to Linux/(qmail|Postfix)/mailman. Only one mes
Someone posted a few days or so ago asking about list sizes. Was there any
response to that query?
I've got a list of about 11,000 currently on Solaris/Sendmail/listproc that
I'm thinking of moving to Linux/(qmail|Postfix)/mailman. Only one message
a week is sent.
Anyone running a list that bi
Well, you guys are gonna kill me for this, but I seem to have solved
my original problem. You may recall that I have a 10,000 member list
which gets a 30K mailing each week, and many people were reporting
missing issues.
Um... it had nothing to do with the size of anything at all.
Someb
On May 14, 2001 at 09:54, Rabinowitz, Ari (Exchange) wrote:
>Chuq,
PMJI.
>Thanks for all of your good ideas in this thread. I'm new to Postfix, and
>Mailman. How would I defer DNS in Postfix? I have a few lists (read only)
If I understand you, put one or both of these in main.cf:
defer_tra
unday, May 13, 2001 2:21 AM
To: J C Lawrence
Cc: Ian White; Mailman Users Group
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] big lists, big messages
On 5/12/01 10:51 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this curious. I have MAX_RCPT_TO set to 5, and to broadcast
> 30 messa
Zowie! I seem to have started a major thread here! Thenks everyone for
all the advice. I can't pretend to understand everything, since I'm not
exactly an e-mail god, but I appreciate the suggestions and will try
some.
I too had considered going to an "abstract format" for the
newsletter, but i
On Sun, 13 May 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
> alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 May 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
> >> There's reason to keep the RCPT TO envelope reasonably small to
> >> prevent triggering some ISP's SPAM traps. Specific
On Sun, 13 May 2001 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> There's reason to keep the RCPT TO envelope reasonably small to
>> prevent triggering some ISP's SPAM traps. Specifically, this
>> appears to be one of the filter point
On Sun, 13 May 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
> There's reason to keep the RCPT TO envelope reasonably small to
> prevent triggering some ISP's SPAM traps. Specifically, this
> appears to be one of the filter points that AOL uses (and of course
> it then drops the caught mail silently without a bounce
On Sun, 13 May 2001 08:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My mailman installation talks to the Windows 2000 SMTP MTA, where
> there are no performance problems with having the batching set to
> a very high number. Multiple queues can send out the same message
> at the s
On 5/13/01 1:21 AM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're running on a 384k dsl then the only advertising is the stuff you put
> up yourself because it's your server.
Not true, but also not really relevant -- I was using it only as an example,
since it's my home DSL. My big stuff is somew
On Sun, 13 May 2001 01:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
tib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>> On 5/13/01 12:22 AM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the piece of email is sponsored and has advertising, it's a
>> HUGE problem. As was the original poster's note
On Sat, 12 May 2001 23:19:15 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/01 10:43 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3) If delivery failures are clogging your MTA queue and are
>> noticably slowing delivery rates, you need to start thinking
>> about reviewing your M
On Sun, 13 May 2001 00:41:16 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/01 12:22 AM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Who has email that does not have web access at the time they get
>> their email?
> Not a huge number, but not zero. As wireless mobile becomes more
> signifi
On Sun, 13 May 2001 00:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
tib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> Your math is off as it ignores RCPT-TO envelope size.
> So throw in a few more bytes times 10k and it gets even bigger
Chuq has already addressed this point thoroughly.
>> Ac
On Sat, 12 May 2001 23:21:05 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/12/01 10:51 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I find this curious. I have MAX_RCPT_TO set to 5, and to
>> broadcast 30 messages to a subscriber base of 1,000 (ie 6,000
>> spool entries) through
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 5/12/01 6:52 PM, "Ian White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which variables should be changed? It looks like the following could use
> > some changes:
> > SMTP_MAX_RCPTS = 500
>
> Between 5 and 10 - that should be set for any mailman installation.
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 5/13/01 12:22 AM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the piece of email is sponsored and has advertising, it's a HUGE problem.
> As was the original poster's note on this stuff.
If you're running on a 384k dsl then the only advertising is the
On 5/13/01 12:44 AM, "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you expect wireless mobile NOT to have web access? Hell, I use my web
> access when mobile much more than my email access.
No, but I expect wireless mobile to have limitations on display -- not to
the level that WAP hoses
On Sun, 13 May 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> As wireless mobile becomes more significant, it'll be a growing issue,
> not a shrinking one.
Do you expect wireless mobile NOT to have web access? Hell, I use my web
access when mobile much more than my email access.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE
On 5/13/01 12:22 AM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who has email that does not have web access at the time they get their email?
Not a huge number, but not zero. As wireless mobile becomes more
significant, it'll be a growing issue, not a shrinking one.
> True: users who have a bland inter
On Sat, 12 May 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
> Your math is off as it ignores RCPT-TO envelope size.
So throw in a few more bytes times 10k and it gets even bigger
> 1) If your messages are getting corrupted, AT ALL, you have far more
> serious problems than how fast your system is able to deliver
On 5/12/01 10:51 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this curious. I have MAX_RCPT_TO set to 5, and to broadcast
> 30 messages to a subscriber base of 1,000 (ie 6,000 spool entries)
> through qrunner to the MTA (postfix) on a dual PII-333 takes just
> over 6 seconds once start
On 5/12/01 10:43 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) If your messages are getting corrupted, AT ALL, you have far more
> serious problems than how fast your system is able to deliver a list
> broadcast.
Yeah. TCP guarantees the data is good. You basically can't get corruption
un
On Sat, 12 May 2001 20:36:37 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> QRUNNER_LOCK_LIFETIME be longer than however long it takes to
> deliver your really large message, or the system will assume the
> lock is dead and break it. You don't want it too large, because if
> the system does
On Sat, 12 May 2001 19:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
tib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To take another approach, mail out a link to the newsletter rather
> than the ENTIRE newsletter to each person. Do the math; if you're
> mailing out a letter that's 30k, to 10,000 users. that's gonna be
> 300 megs of data
On 5/12/01 7:20 PM, "Tib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To take another approach, mail out a link to the newsletter rather than the
> ENTIRE newsletter to each person. Do the math;
Your math is wrong, though.
> if you're mailing out a letter
> that's 30k, to 10,000 users. that's gonna be 300 meg
On 5/12/01 6:52 PM, "Ian White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which variables should be changed? It looks like the following could use
> some changes:
> SMTP_MAX_RCPTS = 500
Between 5 and 10 - that should be set for any mailman installation. 500 is
way too high for reasonable performance.
> MAX_
To take another approach, mail out a link to the newsletter rather than the
ENTIRE newsletter to each person. Do the math; if you're mailing out a letter
that's 30k, to 10,000 users. that's gonna be 300 megs of data that's getting
pumped through your system, on a weekly basis, with each one having
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I ran lists larger than that on majordomo. You can run them on mailman,
> also, but with 2.0, you need to set things up properly -- out of the box,
> you may well have some problems with mailman and lists of that size. The two
> issues are the single
On 5/12/01 2:32 PM, "Eric Schmitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Majordomo seems to be tripping over itself, and many
> of my subscribers are not receiving their newsletter. This is Very Bad,
> especially when the advertisers find out! :-(
I agree with JC -- make sure you know what's failing befo
On Sat, 12 May 2001 16:32:05 -0500
Eric Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience in using Mailman with very large
> lists? I have a newsletter that goes out to 10,000 people each
> week, and each issue is about 30K. Majordomo seems to be tripping
> over itself, and m
Does anyone have any experience in using Mailman with very large lists?
I have a newsletter that goes out to 10,000 people each week, and each
issue is about 30K. Majordomo seems to be tripping over itself, and many
of my subscribers are not receiving their newsletter. This is Very Bad,
especially
50 matches
Mail list logo
