Greg White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 09:30:35PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
If you really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send
qmail-send SIGHUP every once in a while.
I'm no wizard or anything, but isn't ALRM the signal you want for that?
Doesn't HUP just
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 06:40:35PM -0800, Greg White wrote:
[snip]
Reducing queuelifetime will not help you deliver mail faster. If you
really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send qmail-send
SIGHUP every once in a while.
I'm no wizard or anything, but isn't ALRM the signal you
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my
mails ...
Reducing queuelifetime will not help you deliver mail faster. If you
really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send qmail-send
SIGHUP every once in a
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 09:30:35PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my
mails ...
Reducing queuelifetime will not help you deliver mail faster. If you
really want to retry failed
y 24, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:06:30PM +0100, Jacques Frip' WERNERT wrote:
So I'll make a test with "queuelifetime=0" to see if my number of
qmail-remote will increase dramatically.
You surely DON'T want to do this.
T
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Jacques Frip' WERNERT wrote:
I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my
mails ...
No, you obviously don't. Otherwise you'd noticed that the the first
retry for a message in the queue starts after 6m40s so any value lower
ay, January 25, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Jacques Frip' WERNERT wrote:
I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my
mails ...
No, you obviously don't. Otherwise you'd noticed th
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:31:58PM +0100, Jacques Frip' WERNERT wrote:
Where do u find this value "6m40" ?
See qmail-send.c. chanskip[remote] ist initialized to 20 and qmail uses
a quadratic retry schedule. This results in the tables that can found at
e.g.
Hello,
I think I've found some explanations.
In the thoughts file, I've found:
qmail-send doesn't have any notions of precedence, priority, fairness,
importance, etc. It handles the queue in first-seen-first-served order.
One could put a lot of work into doing something different, but that
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:06:30PM +0100, Jacques Frip' WERNERT wrote:
So I'll make a test with "queuelifetime=0" to see if my number of
qmail-remote will increase dramatically.
You surely DON'T want to do this.
This will cause every message that cannot be delivered with the first
try to be
ary 19, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in fact I trying to know why I can see sometimes 100 qmail-remote
processes
and sometimes only 10 with many messages in my queue (ie 200).
So why qmail-send is
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you tell me much more about that please?
From: "Dave Sill" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by
qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by
qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remo
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in fact I trying to know why I can see sometimes 100 qmail-remote processes
and sometimes only 10 with many messages in my queue (ie 200).
So why qmail-send is not asking rspawn to fork much more ...
After a delivery attempt fails, qmail
Hello,
I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue
(ie given by qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as
I've defined (verified by chkspawn).
I'm running Solaris 7 U60U80.
Thanx for any help
Frip'
"Jacques WERNERT" wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by
qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've
defined (verified by chkspawn).
I'm running Solaris 7 U60U80.
Thanx for any help
They may have bounced and hence be
Unadulterated logs files will say. Why not show us a relevant sample
of your logs give us a chance at answering your question?
Regards.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:34:46PM +0100, Jacques Frip' WERNERT wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by qmail-qstat)
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by
qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've
defined (verified by chkspawn).
I answered this yesterday. Check the list archives.
-Dave
ossible :)
Thanx for any help
Regards
Frip'
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Delany" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
Unadulterated logs files will say. Why not show us a releva
"Jacques Frip' WERNERT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by
qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've
defined (verified by chkspawn).
One obvious possibility is that the messages in the queue failed
temporarily on
Hello,
thanx for your reply.
Can you tell me much more about that please?
Regards
Frip'
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Sill" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
&qu
21 matches
Mail list logo
