On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Vinny Wadding wrote:
> Absolutely... It seemed to make no difference if the filters were running o=
> r not. I tried it both ways around. Results were the same when submittin=
> g mails for that domain - the buffers/cache would immediately start increas=
> ing where as the
On 24 Apr 2008 at 14:46, Vinny Wadding wrote:
> Damn, I was hoping I had missed an option in server.tab. ;-)
>
> I only mentioned the memory usage above to clarify that I didn't look like =
> it I was any leak in XMail itself. Obviously, this is a new server and at =
> the moment only
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On=
Behalf Of Davide Libenzi
Sent: 24 April 2008 16:20
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: XMailServer 1.25 Memory Footprint
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Vinny Wadding wrote:
> Damn, I was hoping I had missed
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Vinny Wadding wrote:
> Damn, I was hoping I had missed an option in server.tab. ;-)
>
> I only mentioned the memory usage above to clarify that I didn't look like =
> it I was any leak in XMail itself. Obviously, this is a new server and at =
> the moment only test traffic i
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On=
Behalf Of Davide Libenzi
Sent: 21 April 2008 21:54
To: xmail@xmailserver.org
Subject: [xmail] Re: XMailServer 1.25 Memory Footprint
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Vinny Wadding wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have just ins
xmail using 85MB ram ?
Here on a win2000 server, it take up 15MB max (on low traffic it use 7MB
average) !?!?
Could you give us some information about your server setup ? (os, version,
ram, ...) and xmail CMD_LINE parameters ?
And some 'bad' destination domains to have some real example (the no mx
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Vinny Wadding wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have just installed XMail 1.25 and am not seeing some odd behaviour
> from it. It has taken me a while to try and track down what is
> happening, but here it is from what I can find.
>
> The new server is put live and works extremely we
