Greg Stark wrote:
> A better plan for such systems is to have a queue in your database for
> parameters for e-mails to send. Insert a record in the database and let your
> web server continue processing.
>
> Have a separate process possibly on a separate machine or possibly on multiple
> machines
Doug MacEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > All you care about is to measure the time between email sending start and
> > end (when the process continues on its execution flow). Why should one
> > care about the details of internal implementation
ct is
significantly faster than straight sendmail on Linux.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Doug MacEachern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 5:21 PM
To: Stas Bekman
Cc: Bill Moseley; Modperl
Subject: Re: open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fails
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, St
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > > > All you care about is to measure the time between email sending start and
> > > > end (when the process continue
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > >
> > > > All you care about is to measure the time between email sending start and
> > > > end (when the
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >
> > > All you care about is to measure the time between email sending start and
> > > end (when the process continues on its execution flow). Why should one
>
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > All you care about is to measure the time between email sending start and
> > end (when the process continues on its execution flow). Why should one
> > care about the details of internal implementation.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> All you care about is to measure the time between email sending start and
> end (when the process continues on its execution flow). Why should one
> care about the details of internal implementation.
i only skimmed the first part of this thread, but ass
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
> > As Perrin has suggested, benchmark it an see what's faster. It's so
> > simple.
>
> come on stas, benchmarking Net::SMTP vs. pipe to a program is nothing
> close to simple, it is not something you can us
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> As Perrin has suggested, benchmark it an see what's faster. It's so
> simple.
come on stas, benchmarking Net::SMTP vs. pipe to a program is nothing
close to simple, it is not something you can use Benchmark.pm to cover all
the bases (e.g. tcpserver forki
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Roger Espel Llima wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:25:21PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > Man, if I see ONE MORE script that checks for a "legal email",
>
> well, you could always try to check the address against rfc822... but
> that would be one
> "Bill" == Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> Did you see this of Abigail's?
Bill> http://x58.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=531471039
Yeah, that's already in the CPAN at RFC::RFC822::Address, just a
different way of doing it from Email::Valid.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consu
At 04:39 PM 09/11/00 +0200, Alexander Farber (EED) wrote:
>"Randal L. Schwartz" wrote:
>> Man, if I see ONE MORE script that checks for a "legal email",
>> I'm gonna scream. Matter of fact, I already did. :)
>
>I screamed when I've seen the correct version too :-) It is at
>http://public.yahoo.co
"Randal L. Schwartz" wrote:
> Man, if I see ONE MORE script that checks for a "legal email",
> I'm gonna scream. Matter of fact, I already did. :)
I screamed when I've seen the correct version too :-) It is at
http://public.yahoo.com/~jfriedl/regex/code.html and the regex
for URL's is at http://
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > > As far as benchmarks are concerned, I'm sending one mail after having
> > > displayed the page, so it shoul'dnt matter much ...
> >
> > Yeah, and everytime you get 1M process fired up...
>
> Nevertheless, in benchmarks we ran
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:29:36PM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> At 11:15 PM 09/08/00 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Bill Moseley wrote:
> >> I just looked at my old mail sending module a few days ago that uses
> >> sendmail and would fallback to Net::SMTP if sendmail wasn't avail
At 11:15 PM 09/08/00 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Bill Moseley wrote:
>> I just looked at my old mail sending module a few days ago that uses
>> sendmail and would fallback to Net::SMTP if sendmail wasn't available (it
>> was running on Win at one point, argh!). I just removed t
Title: RE: open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fails
Another approach to is to write the email directly into the queue. I've used this approach and it's very fast. After you write your email to the qmail queue, you write a value of 1 to a named pipe that qmail reads off of.
Regarding cost of forking etc.:
Your mileage will undoubtedly vary, according to OS and MTA.
Last time I did work on this was about a year ago on Solaris
2.6, with sendmail and postfix. In both cases using Net::SMTP
was far faster. IIRC, with postfix there is no forking cost at all,
Stas wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > Nevertheless, in benchmarks we ran we found forking qmail-inject to be
> > quite a bit faster than Net::SMTP. I'd say that at least from a
> > command-line script qmail-inject is a more scalable approach.
>
> Quite possible, I was talki
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Bill Moseley wrote:
> At 10:31 AM 09/08/00 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >Net::SMTP works perfectly and doesn't lack any documentation. If there is
> >a bunch of folks who use mod_perl for their guestbook sites it's perfectly
> >Ok to run sendmail/postfix/whatever program you li
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > > As far as benchmarks are concerned, I'm sending one mail after having
> > > displayed the page, so it shoul'dnt matter much ...
> >
> > Yeah, and everytime you get 1M process fired up...
>
> Nevertheless, i
> "Bill" == Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> I wouldn't want to depend on sending a lot of mail to a mail server I
Bill> didn't have control over in the middle of a request.
Unless the mail is for very local delivery, EVERY piece of mail
goes to a mail server that you don't hav
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is a very important reason for having to fork qmail-inject. Qmail
> by default will not allow mail relaying as a good security measure. You
> don't want your mail server to be used for spamming especially if you
> have a T3 or a T1 link. Anyone
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > As far as benchmarks are concerned, I'm sending one mail after having
> > displayed the page, so it shoul'dnt matter much ...
>
> Yeah, and everytime you get 1M process fired up...
Nevertheless, in benchmarks we ran we found forking qmail-inject to be
q
At 10:07 AM 09/08/00 -0700, brian moseley wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Bill Moseley wrote:
>
>> I don't know how well either of these scale. But if
>> scaling is important I'd think it best not to rely on
>> some smtp daemon.
>
>this is a joke, right?
>
>'i want to send lots of mail, i better not
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:17:31AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have an immense amount of respect for you Randal, but I think you're
> generalizing a bit much here. There are a number of cases where checking
> an email address' validity makes perfectly good sense. The most obvious
> is ju
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Bill Moseley wrote:
> I don't know how well either of these scale. But if
> scaling is important I'd think it best not to rely on
> some smtp daemon.
this is a joke, right?
'i want to send lots of mail, i better not use a MAIL
SERVER'.
At 10:31 AM 09/08/00 +0200, Stas Bekman wrote:
>Net::SMTP works perfectly and doesn't lack any documentation. If there is
>a bunch of folks who use mod_perl for their guestbook sites it's perfectly
>Ok to run sendmail/postfix/whatever program you like... But it just
>doesn't scale for the big proj
There is a very important reason for having to fork qmail-inject. Qmail
by default will not allow mail relaying as a good security measure. You
don't want your mail server to be used for spamming especially if you
have a T3 or a T1 link. Anyone who is allowing sendmail to relay is in
for trouble -
On 7 Sep 2000 Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> This is neither necessary nor sufficient. Please stop with this
> nonsense. An email address can have ANY CHARACTER OF THE PRINTABLE
> ASCII SEQUENCE. An email address NEVER NEEDS TO GET NEAR A SHELL, so
> ALL CHARACTERS ARE SAFE. Clear? Man, if I see ONE
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Nicolas MONNET wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> |Could someone please explain to me why everybody seems so intent on
> |having a mod_perl handler fork in order to send mail? Why not just use
> |the very common Net::SMTP package which just talks on an SMT
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
|Could someone please explain to me why everybody seems so intent on
|having a mod_perl handler fork in order to send mail? Why not just use
|the very common Net::SMTP package which just talks on an SMTP socket to
|whatever mailhost you have (localhost or
Could someone please explain to me why everybody seems so intent on having a mod_perl
handler fork in order to send mail? Why not just use the very common Net::SMTP package
which just talks on an SMTP socket to whatever mailhost you have (localhost or other).
There are other packages on CPAN
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:25:21PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Roger" == Roger Espel Llima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Roger> # limit allowed characters in email addresses
> Roger> $to =~ tr/-a-zA-Z0-9_+%$.,:!@=()[]//cd;
>
> * An email address can have ANY CHARACTER OF THE
> "Roger" == Roger Espel Llima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roger> # limit allowed characters in email addresses
Roger> $to =~ tr/-a-zA-Z0-9_+%$.,:!@=()[]//cd;
This is neither necessary nor sufficient. Please stop with this nonsense.
**
*
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Roger Espel Llima wrote:
> > > Might be a faq, but why would open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fail with
> > > fatal: read-error from within mod_perl?
> > Use
> > open MAIL, "| /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject" or &die_html("test");
> > print MAIL "[your mail]";
> >
> > Might be a faq, but why would open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fail with
> > fatal: read-error from within mod_perl?
> Use
> open MAIL, "| /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject" or &die_html("test");
> print MAIL "[your mail]";
> close MAIL;
>
> I suppose you forgot the full path to qm
Thanks a lot, seems to be it, never heard about that env var. That's one
weird behavior.
On 7 Sep 2000, Frank D. Cringle wrote:
|Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Might be a faq, but why would open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fail with
|> fatal: read-error from within mod_perl?
|
|Are the f
Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Might be a faq, but why would open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fail with
> fatal: read-error from within mod_perl?
Are the files in /var/qmail/control world readable?
Is QMAILMFTFILE defined in the environment and pointing to a file that
the httpd process can
No, no the full path is there, I just did'nt copy it.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Frédéric Schwien wrote:
|Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:18:20 +0200
|From: Frédéric Schwien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: open(FH,'
> Might be a faq, but why would open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fail with
> fatal: read-error from within mod_perl?
Use
open MAIL, "| /var/qmail/bin/qmail-inject" or &die_html("test");
print MAIL "[your mail]";
close MAIL;
I suppose you forgot the full path to qmail-inject ...
Might be a faq, but why would open(FH,'|qmail-inject') fail with
fatal: read-error from within mod_perl?
Thanks for your help.
43 matches
Mail list logo
