I would think that a qpsmtpd system might not be able to handle as
much throughput as a stock qmail system, due to the amount of up front
processing that it does. Obviously, each qpsmtpd system is going to be
different, depending on what plugins admins choose to use with them.
I
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote:
On Sep 18, 2006, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am wondering if someone else has similar hardware, what kind of
a userbase they are supporting with it. Similarly, if someone is
supporting about 10,000 users, what hardware they are
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Lars Roland wrote:
On 9/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think that a qpsmtpd system might not be able to handle as
much throughput as a stock qmail system, due to the amount of up front
processing that it does. Obviously, each qpsmtpd
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Matt Sergeant wrote:
I seriously recommend you check out running under Apache. I suspect it's the
fastest way to run qpsmtpd (barring experimenting with the poll server). It's
how apache.org have been running qpsmtpd for a long time now.
I'll certainly consider
I am running 0.32 forkserver with mostly custom/customized
plugins. I have a connection plugin (connect hook) which happens to set
some connection notes, but when TLS runs, the notes are no longer there.
I think that sounds appropriate, as TLS essentially starts a new
connection.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, John Peacock wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone please suggest a simple way to pass a note from the
connection plugin to everything after TLS?
You can't. What information are you trying to pass? Can you redo whatever
analysis you performed before, say in
I am using qpsmtpd 0.32 forkserver on a dual opteron system in 64bit
Linux, FC3.
I have tried several of the various spamassassin plugins available,
specifically one that opens a pipe from spamc -R and one that connects
directly to spamc from Perl.
The issue I am seeing is that either versions
