Is there a way to make qmail defer messages in the event of an NFS outage
that does *not* involve creating a user database?
The project I am working on involves three mail servers, each with an NFS
connection to the user directories. No user information is stored locally
on any of the machines;
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:18:35PM -0500, Kris Kelley wrote:
[snip]
So far my results have been successful. All is well when the network is
behaving itself, and qmail defers messages properly when qmail-getpw fails
due to a bad network connection. A contingency for a failed NFS mount is
one
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 10:38:33PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:18:35PM -0500, Kris Kelley wrote:
[snip]
So far my results have been successful. All is well when the network is
behaving itself, and qmail defers messages properly when qmail-getpw fails
due to a
.markd seems to have a
good solution for intermittent NFS problems.
--
Michael Boyiazis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Kris Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 1:19 PM
To: QMail Mailing List
Subject: NFS without
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 01:40:53PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Ok, let's do this out of order.
.qmail tricks - doing a deferral from ~alias/.qmail-default if the user
seems valid?
Or, *duh*: the homedir check is in qmail-getpw. Since you've already
modified it, modify
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 01:50:51PM -0700, Michael Boyiazis wrote:
since you have already gone into qmail-getpw.c,
play with it a bit more. what we did was modify
it to exit 111 if a control file exists in /var/qmail/control/...
Hmm nice thought, that means remote deliveries are still
Peter van Dijk and markd wrote:
Or, *duh*: the homedir check is in qmail-getpw. Since you've already
modified it, modify it some more :)
Right. But he may not actually have to check for the existance of HOME
currently
and in any event there is a timing window between qmail-getpw and
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:22:42PM -0500, Kris Kelley wrote:
[snip]
Yeah, that's because qmail-getpw does the bouncing.
Makes sense. Okay, so if I make qmail-getpw either not do a directory
check, or handle the results differently, then there shouldn't be any lost
or bounced email, even
