Yaoxing put forth on 12/22/2010 9:59 PM:
3. 3.2MB/s disk IO write, 0.01MB/s read.
MB/s throughput isn't usually a factor, but IOPS definitely can be.
What's in the iostat tps column for the device your mail queues reside on?
If your mail queue resides on a single mechanical disk spindle you
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 11:59 +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking for some help of postfix server configuration. hope this is
the right place to ask.
I have a mail server running iRedMail (which is based on postfix). It
sends mails to our subscribers every 4s. I think this doesn't seem to
Hi Stan,
Thank you very much for your adequate explanation. I made some comments
below.
Regards,
Yaoxing
2010/12/23 16:06, Stan Hoeppner:
Yaoxing put forth on 12/22/2010 9:59 PM:
3. 3.2MB/s disk IO write, 0.01MB/s read.
MB/s throughput isn't usually a factor, but IOPS definitely can be.
Hi Ram,
I do have some more spare memory, but I'm afraid it doesn't resolve my
problem.
Let's say, my active queue is filled with 20,000 mails, but mails are
not going out but remains in memory. In this case if I increase active
queue size, I just put more mails in memory, they still don't go
* Yaoxing yaoxing.zh...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
I'm looking for some help of postfix server configuration. hope this is
the right place to ask.
I have a mail server running iRedMail (which is based on postfix). It
sends mails to our subscribers every 4s. I think this doesn't seem to be
a very
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 17:56:29 Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/21/2010 11:46 AM, Stuart Bailey wrote:
Hello,
I have a postfix server accepting emails on port 25 from the
Internet, and
delivering to cyrus.
There is another sever running Mail Marshall on Windows, that
is used as the
It takes too long to show the complete result, but here's the first
screen of
qshape active
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640
1280 1280+
TOTAL 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 1000
gmail.com
Post the output from postconf -n, and a relevant section of the mail logs.
--
J.
4. Less than 20 postfix process (while limitation is explicitly set to 100)
Then, you are sending all mail through the same relay host. Why
are you sending mass mail through a relay host?
Wietse
No special reasons, just trying to find a simple way to program. If this is
the reason why it's so slow, how about using smtp instead? does it resolve
the problem?
On Dec 23, 2010 8:11 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Yaoxing Zhang:
No special reasons, just trying to find a simple way to program. If this is
the reason why it's so slow, how about using smtp instead? does it resolve
the problem?
Please go back to the default settings, and report if the
system is still behaving slower than expected.
It is
Hello!
Thank you very much, Victor Wietse, for the quick help!
On Wednesday 22 December 2010 19:07:15 Victor Duchovni wrote:
Make that:
content_filter=my_filter:dummy.
Otherwise, each destination domain is a separate sub-queue.
Yes, that was precisely what I had overlooked. I
To summarize:
DSN as of RFC 3461 is only recommended as internal status indicator
for message relayed out of the own scope. End-to-end status is neither
supported nor technical possible at the moment.
So with this DSN is useless for us, as we don't have a complex or
unreliable internal
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 4:45 AM:
Is this what you're talking about?
Yes.
Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
sda 148.63 27.55 6550.60 523033469 124353201092
sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2524 116
sda2 148.63 27.55 6550.59 523027626 124353101816
sda3 0.00 0.00 0.01 2895 99160
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/23/2010 6:10 AM:
4. Less than 20 postfix process (while limitation is explicitly set to 100)
Then, you are sending all mail through the same relay host. Why
are you sending mass mail through a relay host?
Wietse
It would appear my recommendation may
@Stan
It's OK, you helped a lot already. And your figure is a very good
reference for me. Thank you very much.
@Wietse
I'll try not to use relay host to check the speed.
And sorry if I didn't express myself clearly, I don't mean to complain
anything. Just don't know what's wrong and what to
Yaoxing:
@Stan
It's OK, you helped a lot already. And your figure is a very good
reference for me. Thank you very much.
@Wietse
I'll try not to use relay host to check the speed.
And sorry if I didn't express myself clearly, I don't mean to complain
anything. Just don't know what's
First off, new to the list so, greetings everyone and Happy Holidays.
We had another person managing our mail server and during that time, he
sewt up an SSL cert to manage secure connections. That cert is out of
date and I have been trying to update the cert. I have run the normal
openssl
-Original Message-
From: Yaoxing
Sent: 23/12/2010 4:23:51 pm
To: Ramprasad
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: postfix queue tuning
Hi Ram,
I do have some more spare memory, but I'm afraid it doesn't resolve my
problem.
Let's say, my active queue is filled with 20,000 mails,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:03:45PM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
qshape active
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
TOTAL 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1000
gmail.com 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 254
I think the bandwidths is OK. I have a 100Mb ethernet but until now it's
like15Mb/s according to
iftop -i eth1
For the concurrency issue, what parameter would you suggest to change? I
found some parameters from the documents but do not fully understand
them yet.
Regards,
Yaoxing
2010/12/24
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:07:58AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
I think the bandwidths is OK. I have a 100Mb ethernet but until now it's
like15Mb/s according to
iftop -i eth1
For the concurrency issue, what parameter would you suggest to change? I
found some parameters from the documents but do
It's a newsletter group. because it's congesting so I stopped posting
new mails. I think that's why all mails are from 1280+ min ago.
I use
find active/ | wc -l
which gives me 20,002, while
find incoming/ | wc -l
gives 130,000+
and the incoming queue is slowly decreasing.
Regards,
Yaoxing
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:55:45AM -0500, Dave Filchak wrote:
We had another person managing our mail server and during that time, he
set up an SSL cert to manage secure connections. That cert is out of
date and I have been trying to update the cert. I have run the normal
openssl commands to
see comments below.
2010/12/24 1:16, Victor Duchovni Wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:07:58AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Waste of time. Post NON-VERBOSE LOGGING by smtp(8) and qmgr(8).
logfiles=/some/where
egrep 'postfix/(qmgr|smtp)\[' $logfiles | tail -100
Dec 23 11:23:25 e
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:17:48AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
It's a newsletter group. because it's congesting so I stopped posting new
mails. I think that's why all mails are from 1280+ min ago.
No. This is wrong, the incoming queue contains fairly fresh mail.
I use
find active/ | wc -l
which
Hello and sorry for the delay, I wanted to re-examine my logs and assumptions.
On December 21, 2010 03:00:02 pm Wietse Venema wrote:
Ray:
Hello,
I'm having an issue with email just disappearing.
I have been looking at the documentation and logs. I have made the logs
more verbose.
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:29:00AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Waste of time. Post NON-VERBOSE LOGGING by smtp(8) and qmgr(8).
logfiles=/some/where
egrep 'postfix/(qmgr|smtp)\[' $logfiles | tail -100
Dec 23 11:23:25 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 3C15BFB9143: removed
Dec 23 11:23:25 e
There's nothing in my hold queue. MailScanner do you mean amavis? I
stopped that 10 hours ago. but it doesn't seem to make the situation better.
If I restart postfix, does it make the figure like that? because I
noticed mails in active queues went back to incoming queue while
restarting. So
Well ... OK then: sorry, I am not overly expert in managing the server
and am learning as I go so please bear with me.
Here is the output from postconf -n
alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/aliases,hash:/usr/local/mailman/data/aliases
broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes
command_directory = /usr/sbin
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:37:48AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
There's nothing in my hold queue. MailScanner do you mean amavis? I stopped
that 10 hours ago. but it doesn't seem to make the situation better.
You can't just stop the content filter, existing messages have the
content_filter transport
On 12/23/2010 11:33 AM, Ray wrote:
I believe that the message is being accepted by Postfix due to lines like the
following in the logs
Dec 23 10:12:20 wserver amavis[15273]: (15273-12) Passed CLEAN,
[70.65.***.***] [70.65.***.***]r...@stilltech.net - **...@shaw.ca,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:43:44PM -0500, Dave Filchak wrote:
Well ... OK then: sorry, I am not overly expert in managing the server
and am learning as I go so please bear with me.
Here is the output from postconf -n
smtp_tls_note_starttls_offer = yes
smtp_use_tls = yes
smtpd_tls_CAfile
Sorry, here's the full list with 100 lines:
Dec 23 11:38:35 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 5E55BFC749F: removed
Dec 23 11:38:35 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 6FC51297C081:
from=n...@e.xxx.com, size=18380, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec 23 11:38:38 e postfix/smtp[34263]: 4E4C7297BE10:
to=cryogai...@yahoo.com,
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 11:29 AM:
relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024
Why are you sending outbound newsletters through a content filter? You
should already know that the content is not spam, and virus free, yes?
And if they are newsletters, why are you sending them every 4 seconds to
the
Then I think I didn't express it clearly. sorry for my bad English.
I have like 400,000 subscribers. every week I send to all of them a news
letter. Every 4 sec, I send out 1 mail to 1 person. I know it's very
slow, but still it congests. That's why I'm wondering what's wrong. also
the same
Yes, that was my problem. I was confusing postfix with dovecot. It is
now updated and functioning normally.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Dave
On 23/12/10 12:49 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:43:44PM -0500, Dave Filchak wrote:
Well ... OK then: sorry, I am not overly
Le 23/12/2010 14:39, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de a écrit :
To summarize:
DSN as of RFC 3461 is only recommended as internal status indicator for
message relayed out of the own scope. End-to-end status is neither
supported nor technical possible at the moment.
well,
- that is _your_ opinion.
-
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 12:05 PM:
Then I think I didn't express it clearly. sorry for my bad English.
I have like 400,000 subscribers. every week I send to all of them a news
letter. Every 4 sec, I send out 1 mail to 1 person. I know it's very
slow, but still it congests. That's why
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:51:13AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Dec 23 11:38:35 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 6FC51297C081: from=n...@e.xxx.com,
size=18380, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Some new mail is entering the active queue either from incoming or
deferred queue.
Do you really want the hostname
I am encountering trouble sending outbound email (connection time
outs). Is there a way I could see mail header contents without
connecting to the target server to send out the email?
Thanks in advance
Le 21/12/2010 22:51, Ray a écrit :
Hello,
I'm having an issue with email just disappearing.
I have been looking at the documentation and logs. I have made the logs more
verbose.
http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#verbose
I can see the messages being accepted, but then nothing.
No this is a misunderstanding. I just masked my company's domain name
with xxx.com due to my policies. I used to mask it with abc.com but it
seems to be a TV chanel. I don't want to confuse people so I changed to
xxx.com, just randomly.
My company is a ecommerce company which send newsletters
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:39:23PM +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
To summarize:
DSN as of RFC 3461 is only recommended as internal status indicator for
message relayed out of the own scope. End-to-end status is neither
supported nor technically possible at the moment.
This is a
On 12/23/2010 12:50 PM, Roman Gelfand wrote:
I am encountering trouble sending outbound email (connection time
outs). Is there a way I could see mail header contents without
connecting to the target server to send out the email?
Thanks in advance
The postcat(1) command allows you to examine
Yaoxing:
No this is a misunderstanding. I just masked my company's domain name
with xxx.com due to my policies. I used to mask it with abc.com but it
seems to be a TV chanel. I don't want to confuse people so I changed to
xxx.com, just randomly.
My company is a ecommerce company which send
Le 23/12/2010 19:50, Roman Gelfand a écrit :
I am encountering trouble sending outbound email (connection time
outs). Is there a way I could see mail header contents without
connecting to the target server to send out the email?
try a sniffer (tcpdump, wireshark, ...)
- if you have
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 02:53:15AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
My company is a ecommerce company which send newsletters to our subscribed
clients weekly. we have nothing to do with spammers.
Sufficiently poor list management and/or privacy policies are
indistinguishable from spam. If you want to
Well I don't want to make this thread look an advertisement. but as long
as you found out already, try Alexa to get more about dealextreme.com
which would prove to you we are not spammers.
Regards,
Yaoxing
2010/12/24 3:05, Wietse Venema Wrote:
Yaoxing:
I was getting suspicious because Yahoo
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:06 PM, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Le 23/12/2010 19:50, Roman Gelfand a écrit :
I am encountering trouble sending outbound email (connection time
outs). Is there a way I could see mail header contents without
connecting to the target server to send out the
If found the issue. The from address was bad.
Thanks for help.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Roman Gelfand rgelfa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:06 PM, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
Le 23/12/2010 19:50, Roman Gelfand a écrit :
I am encountering trouble sending outbound
Although the subscription page is always open to our clients, we don't
send newsletters until recently. That's why I suddenly get so many
subscribers, valid and invalid, all at a time, and get so many troubles
then. Otherwise I won't work until 3:00AM.
Anyway, we're too far away from the
* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
It takes mail many days to get through the content filter. Fix your content
filter.
Or circumvent it for this type of mail! If your KNOW what you're
sending out, why scan for viruses?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
I was getting suspicious because Yahoo is permanently refusing your
mail, but this is bad:
% host 195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org
195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org has address 127.0.0.2
BTW your SMTP server banner says
* Roman Gelfand rgelfa...@gmail.com:
I am encountering trouble sending outbound email (connection time
outs). Is there a way I could see mail header contents without
connecting to the target server to send out the email?
Yeah, use postcat on your queuefiles.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Dear
I have a server with 8 processors.
I would like to create 8 postfix instances and each instance use a
dedicated processor.
Is it possible to do that ?
Best regards
On December 23, 2010 10:48:07 am Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:33 AM, Ray wrote:
I believe that the message is being accepted by Postfix due to lines like
the following in the logs
Dec 23 10:12:20 wserver amavis[15273]: (15273-12) Passed CLEAN,
[70.65.***.***]
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0100, David Touzeau wrote:
I have a server with 8 processors.
I would like to create 8 postfix instances and each instance use a
dedicated processor.
Is it possible to do that ?
Let your O/S do the scheduling. Locking down each instance of Postfix
to a
David Touzeau:
Dear
I have a server with 8 processors.
I would like to create 8 postfix instances and each instance use a
dedicated processor.
Is it possible to do that ?
Depends on the operating system. There is no standard API for doing this.
I suggest that you consult the
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 12/23/2010 1:45 PM:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
I was getting suspicious because Yahoo is permanently refusing your
mail, but this is bad:
% host 195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org
195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org has address
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 01:08:53PM -0700, Ray wrote:
Dec 23 10:33:37 wserver postfix/smtp[16665]: 5B80F1B173C: to=postfix-
us...@postfix.org, relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024, delay=15,
delays=0.1/0/0.01/15, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok, id=16134-09, from
MTA([127.0.0.1]:10025): 250
David Touzeau put forth on 12/23/2010 1:58 PM:
Dear
I have a server with 8 processors.
I would like to create 8 postfix instances and each instance use a
dedicated processor.
Is it possible to do that ?
If binding a Postfix instance to a physical CPU is really what you
want/need, say
With multiple postfix instance, you can easily separate set of
configurations but keep some processes eg filters commonly.
This Postfix technology is very helpful for ISP/ASP mode.
So if you define that each instance using different domains and
different behaviors (eg mass mailing for one
Dear bests
I would like to know if you think this tool can help me about my
needs :
http://linux.die.net/man/1/taskset
bets regards
Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 à 15:17 -0500, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 08:58:31PM +0100, David Touzeau wrote:
I have a server with 8
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:24:32PM +0100, Robert Linden wrote:
Make that:
content_filter=my_filter:dummy.
Otherwise, each destination domain is a separate sub-queue.
Yes, that was precisely what I had overlooked. I think it used to work
differently,
This has not changed since
On 12/23/2010 2:08 PM, Ray wrote:
On December 23, 2010 10:48:07 am Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:33 AM, Ray wrote:
I believe that the message is being accepted by Postfix due to lines like
the following in the logs
Dec 23 10:12:20 wserver amavis[15273]: (15273-12) Passed CLEAN,
Victor Duchovni:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:24:32PM +0100, Robert Linden wrote:
Make that:
content_filter=my_filter:dummy.
Otherwise, each destination domain is a separate sub-queue.
Yes, that was precisely what I had overlooked. I think it used to work
differently,
Dear bests
I would like to know if you think that taskset tool can help me about my
needs :
http://linux.die.net/man/1/taskset
Do you think that doing
taskset -c 1 postmulti -i postfix-[instance] -p start
will do the trick
I'm afraid that only postmulti will set to processor 1 but will not
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 05:15:06PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Yes, that was precisely what I had overlooked. I think it used to work
differently,
This has not changed since at least Postfix 1.0, the design of the
queue manager is fundamentally based around transport:nexthop pairs.
On December 23, 2010 03:00:29 pm Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/23/2010 2:08 PM, Ray wrote:
On December 23, 2010 10:48:07 am Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:33 AM, Ray wrote:
I believe that the message is being accepted by Postfix due to lines
like the following in the logs
Dec 23
David Touzeau put forth on 12/23/2010 3:43 PM:
Dear bests
I would like to know if you think this tool can help me about my
needs :
http://linux.die.net/man/1/taskset
Ahh, Linux, and Debian no less. My favorite as well. :)
I strongly suggest you read the following document (which I
Many thanks Stan
But to be honest, you document is very hard to understand... for my
skills
cpusets are set to create cpu tasks environnements
my problem is to ensure that all postfix tasks will go into the defined
cpuset filesystem
because if i set the first process /usr/sbin/postfix start to
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:40:02AM +0100, David Touzeau wrote:
Many thanks Stan
But to be honest, you document is very hard to understand... for my
skills
cpusets are set to create cpu tasks environnements
my problem is to ensure that all postfix tasks will go into the defined
cpuset
On 12/23/2010 5:03 PM, Ray wrote:
On December 23, 2010 03:00:29 pm Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/23/2010 2:08 PM, Ray wrote:
On December 23, 2010 10:48:07 am Noel Jones wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:33 AM, Ray wrote:
I believe that the message is being accepted by Postfix due to lines
like the following
I cannot really understand based on what do u insist on I'm spamer? Ok
I didn't obfusecate the clients email that's my fault. But why do u
think I post only a few lines at first?
Besides, I did not exit from the thread, removing amavis does resolve
my problem. And it's really too late for me if u
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 09:11:19AM +0800, ? wrote:
I cannot really understand based on what do u insist on I'm spamer? Ok
I didn't obfusecate the clients email that's my fault. But why do u
think I post only a few lines at first?
Besides, I did not exit from the thread, removing
-Original Message-
From: Yaoxing
Sent: 23/12/2010 10:37:58 pm
To: r...@netcore.co.in
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: postfix queue tuning
I think the bandwidths is OK. I have a 100Mb ethernet but until now it's
like15Mb/s according to
iftop -i eth1
For the
David Touzeau put forth on 12/23/2010 5:40 PM:
Many thanks Stan
You're welcome. Please note [1] at bottom.
But to be honest, you document is very hard to understand... for my
skills
cpusets are set to create cpu tasks environnements
my problem is to ensure that all postfix tasks will go
I am using postfix server as an smtp gateway to exchange server. I
have configured a series of services and filters with postfix. One of
antispam daemons is dspam, content filter. I have configured it to
replace smtp server. Once an email is inspected, it is reinjected for
delivery. I am now
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:01:44PM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
I am using postfix server as an smtp gateway to exchange server. I
have configured a series of services and filters with postfix. One of
antispam daemons is dspam, content filter. I have configured it to
replace smtp server.
Roman Gelfand put forth on 12/23/2010 10:01 PM:
I am now looking to use the postfix mail gateway, smart host,
to send mail out. Specifically, I would like to bypass all of
the checks done for incoming mail
If you are referring to user submitted mail to be relayed to the outside
world, you
81 matches
Mail list logo
