On 2007-08-30 21:12:15 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2007-08-29 17:50:28 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
A four-tuple identifying the TCP connection also identifies the server.
Right. And the tuple must not be reused for some time (2*MSL or 4 minutes
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:50:40 +0200
Stefan Priebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here are some problems and the solutions ( the patches may not apply
cleanly to the actual 0.40 version):
1.) You get some errors with the auth mechanism if an old process has
used auth the value seems not to be
Hi Stefan,
[Cc: to ML again]
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:58:07 +0200
Stefan Priebe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To 1.) i'm not shure but it works perfectly with only deleting the
_auth. The main question is - what gives us MORE performance (delete the
values or create a new instance). The clean
Hanno Hecker wrote:
To 1.) i'm not shure but it works perfectly with only deleting the
_auth. The main question is - what gives us MORE performance (delete the
values or create a new instance). The clean solution is, to create a new
instance - that's right.
Performance aside, a new instance
OK - that's right.
Stefan
Johan Almqvist schrieb:
Hanno Hecker wrote:
To 1.) i'm not shure but it works perfectly with only deleting the
_auth. The main question is - what gives us MORE performance (delete
the values or create a new instance). The clean solution is, to
create a new instance
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Michael Holzt wrote:
You can't have multiple processes bound to the same
local_IP/local_port,
Of course you can.
bind - listen - fork
Yes, brain fart at my end. s/$/ except by inheritance post-fork/.
If we stop listening post-fork (as qpsmtpd-forkserver does) then
On 2007-08-31 10:42:37 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Michael Holzt wrote:
You can't have multiple processes bound to the same
local_IP/local_port,
Of course you can.
bind - listen - fork
Yes, brain fart at my end. s/$/ except by inheritance post-fork/.
If we
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:27:42 -0500
Hi all,
I've been using qpsmtpd for about 6 months now but I've just signed up for
this list. I recently upgraded to 0.40 and I'm running on a modified
Mandriva
using qmail and with qpsmtpd running under
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2007-08-31 10:42:37 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
However, there is still an issue with Peter's proposed zero out remote
address components proposal - prior to accept(), qpstmpd-forkserver may
have multiple listening sockets. Some of those sockets
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:27:42 -0500
...
Any idea what's going on here? It requires a -9 to kill the processes.
...
and then it hangs forever and requires a -9.
Are you quite sure of that? What
From: Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:27:42 -0500
...
Any idea what's going on here? It requires a -9 to kill the processes.
Lo,
I seem to be having a relaying problem. I have qpsmtpd on our office
mailserver (cirith-ungol), it's the version before 0.4. I am migrating
all email to a hosted linux box(biggles) and upgraded to 0.4. I am
getting a lot of processes like the ones below and have no idea where
they come from.
Anybody else seeing this error? Running 0.40 with svn patches up to 783.
qpsmtpd-daemon: Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
lib/Qpsmtpd.pm line 28.
I've tried creating the file plugin_dirs and am currently running with it
un-created, but get the same error either way.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified:
trunk/lib/Qpsmtpd/Connection.pm
trunk/qpsmtpd-forkserver
Log:
Connection id similar to the transaction id by Matt.
For what it's worth I really don't like this implementation - if we're
going to add in a connection id it should be
14 matches
Mail list logo
