Hi,
On 11.10.2011 at 00:19 Lutz Petersen wrote:
>
> Why are the 0-Byte-Files (no second connection comes in ever) laying around
> in the same way as directories and used files ? Would'nt it make sense to
> delete these empty greylisting files much more earlies than those diretories
> or used f
Quoting Peter Palmreuther :
>
> I do exactly this (albeit with a self written script, because when I
> started to cleanup my graylisting directory I didn't know about
> 'qtp-prune-graylist').
> Empty files older than 24 hours, "too old" files (->
> graylist-max-secs) and subsequently empty d
On 11/01/2011 04:03 AM, t...@uncon.org wrote:
> Quoting Peter Palmreuther:
>
>>
>> I do exactly this (albeit with a self written script, because when I
>> started to cleanup my graylisting directory I didn't know about
>> 'qtp-prune-graylist').
>> Empty files older than 24 hours, "too old" files (-
On 01.11.2011 at 12:03 t...@uncon.org wrote:
>
> Quoting Peter Palmreuther :
>> I do exactly this (albeit with a self written script, because when I
>> started to cleanup my graylisting directory I didn't know about
>> 'qtp-prune-graylist').
>> Empty files older than 24 hours, "too old" files
Quoting Eric Shubert :
> I've been wondering though about perhaps using tmpfs for the graylist
> tree. That might be a potential solution as well for hosts that process
> huge amounts of email. Of course the whole tree would be lost on
> rebooting, but if that was a problem it could be copied off
On 11/02/2011 03:11 AM, t...@uncon.org wrote:
> Quoting Eric Shubert:
>
>> I've been wondering though about perhaps using tmpfs for the graylist
>> tree. That might be a potential solution as well for hosts that process
>> huge amounts of email. Of course the whole tree would be lost on
>> rebootin
