David Nicol said the following on 30/11/2005 20:15:
> pop-before-smtp implies two things:
>
> 1: the pop server maintains a table of good remote peer IP addresses
>
> 2: the smtp system is able to consult that table when making a relay decision
>
> Writing a forkserver-suitable plugin that does
On 11/30/05, Robin Bowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Peacock said the following on 29/11/2005 18:01:
> > Robin Bowes wrote:
> >
> >> One thing: I currently use tcpserver to enable relaying using
> >> pop-before-smtp, i.e.:
> >>
> >> -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
> >>
> >> Is there anyway to do thi
John Peacock said the following on 29/11/2005 18:01:
> Robin Bowes wrote:
>
>> One thing: I currently use tcpserver to enable relaying using
>> pop-before-smtp, i.e.:
>>
>> -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
>>
>> Is there anyway to do this using qpsmtpd-forkserver?
>
>
> My recommendation is to not use p
Robin Bowes wrote:
One thing: I currently use tcpserver to enable relaying using
pop-before-smtp, i.e.:
-x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
Is there anyway to do this using qpsmtpd-forkserver?
My recommendation is to not use pop-before-smtp at all (it's just so
`90's), and use SMTPAUTH instead (whi
Matt Sergeant said the following on 29/11/2005 13:38:
> On 28 Nov 2005, at 21:41, John Peacock wrote:
>
>>> Is it worth me trying the high_perf branch?
>>
>>
>> The high_perf branch was merged to trunk and currently doesn't
>> function as a
>> complete system (like tags/0.31 does) since not all of
John Peacock said the following on 29/11/2005 02:41:
> Don't bother (as Ask says); run forkserver instead. My primary MX boxes are
> Cobalt RaQ3's which are about as lightweight as you can get (AMD-K6 @998
> bogomips). Try to max out the RAM, though, since it is usually dirt cheap for
> older box
Ok, answering my own questions here :)
qppoprelay seems to do what I need:
http://qpsmtpd.kju.de/qpsmtpd/created_by_me/qppoprelay/
Michael, you might like to add to the install notes that you need to
have suidperl installed to run qppoprelay-unlock.
Also, if you're using softlimit, you'
On 28 Nov 2005, at 21:41, John Peacock wrote:
Is it worth me trying the high_perf branch?
The high_perf branch was merged to trunk and currently doesn't
function as a
complete system (like tags/0.31 does) since not all of the plugins
have been
rewritten to use the new code.
I'd like those
John Peacock said the following on 29/11/2005 02:41:
>
> My advice mirrors Ask's; here is my run file:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> exec 2>&1 \
> envdir ./env \
> sh -c '
> exec \
> softlimit ${DATALIMIT+"-d$DATALIMIT"} \
> ${PERL-perl} -T ./qpsmtpd-forkserver \
> --listen-address
Robin Bowes wrote:
> How would I change this to use PPerl?
Don't bother (as Ask says); run forkserver instead. My primary MX boxes are
Cobalt RaQ3's which are about as lightweight as you can get (AMD-K6 @998
bogomips). Try to max out the RAM, though, since it is usually dirt cheap for
older boxe
On Nov 28, 2005, at 15:45 , Robin Bowes wrote:
[...]
How would I change this to use PPerl?
Is it worth me trying the high_perf branch?
Try qpsmtpd-forkserver instead of running under tcpserver.
- ask
--
http://askask.com/ - http://develooper.com/
Hi,
I've got a client on an underpowered box (Duron 1100) on whcih I'm
running qpsmtpd 0.31. Load averages are ~5 permanently with 50/50
tcpserver connections.
I'm using the following run command:
#!/bin/sh
QMAILDUID=`id -u qpsmtpd`
NOFILESGID=`id -g qpsmtpd`
PORT=25
MAXSMTPD=`cat /var/qmail/con
12 matches
Mail list logo
