I hade customers which got emails again and again in spamdyke version
prior to 3.1.4. The maximum timeout I have been setting was 600.
Whitelisting didn't help.
Version 3.1.4 of spamdyke fixed this behaviour for me. Maybe because of
the changes of sendrecv in release 3.1.4?
On 06 Feb 08, Chris Robinson wrote:
Maybe I didn't express myself properly. Spamdyke was timeing out the
connection perfectly correctly because the client was inactive for more than
60 seconds which was spamdyke's default idle timeout. So the client's
Outlook sees the disconnection and retries, often resulting in another
partial copy of the same message. That is why I've probably fixed it by
setting idle-timeout-secs=1200, which should handle even the slowest
clients.
But it's not the cause, it's the effect that concerns me. The partial
message received before the disconnection (e.g. 50 Kb of a 200Kb email) has
been piped to qmail-smtpd which then actually delivers it. How could
qmail-smtpd deliver a message that has not been properly terminated? Does
spamdyke simply close the pipe to qmail-smtpd, as would happen if
qmail-smtpd were connected directly to the client and qmail-smtpd initiated
the timeout?
Somehow a fundamental principle of SMTP MTAs is being breached, namely that
an incomplete session will never result in delivery, local or remote, of a
partial message.
My details:
xinetd.d
-
server = /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
server_args = -Rt0 /usr/local/bin/spamdyke -f
/usr/np/mail/spamdyke/spamdyke.conf /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpdauth
/var/qmail/bin/checkpassword /bin/true
Clamav and Spamassassin are only run after qmail-local pipes it to procmail
via the .qmail file, so they can't be affecting the issue. Of course neither
of those programs are run when the recipient is remote and qmail-remote
handles it. But even remote recipients are receiving multiple, partial
copies of the same message
Cheers and thanks for the response,
Chris Robinson
- Original Message -
From: Sam Clippinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: spamdyke users spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 18:11
Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] Spamdyke passes partial emails to qmail after
timeout
Most likely, this is a virus/spam filter issue. Some qmail
installations pass the incoming email to Spamassassin or ClamAV before
acknowledging the delivery. When that happens, spamdyke's idle timeout
can trigger a disconnection if the scanner takes too long (this is
common for large attachments).
The best way to be sure is to enable full logging (with full-log-dir)
and examine the logs for disconnected deliveries. The log will contain
timestamps that will show long each response was delayed.
Of course, it's also possible you've found a bug. :) In that case, I'll
need to find a way to reproduce it, so I may need you to (privately)
send me a few full logs along with details of your spamdyke configuration.
-- Sam Clippinger
Chris Robinson wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I run mail servers for about 30 companies (qmail /spamdyke 3.1.0 /
Fedora
2.4.21) and started experiencing a problem whereby some users complained
that they could send an email and it was received by the recipient
corrupted
multiple times in varying sizes until eventually the final version would
arrive correct in full. To cut a long story short I eventually tracked
it
down from a string in a user's Outlook log Talk faster next time. A
google
revealed all. It wasn't coming from qmail but from spamdyke, which
explained
why I couldn't grep it in the qmail source.
I've probably fixed it by setting idle-timeout-secs=1200. But what
worries
me is why the recipient got anything except the final good email. If
spamdyke issues that 421 error then breaks the connection, the user's
Outlook can justifiably assume that the email won't have been accepted
by
the server, nor sent to the recipient. But what seems to happen is that
the
part that has been received down the pipe so far has been passed by
spamdyke
to qmail-smtpd which has passed it to qmail-queue and thence to the
local or
remote recipient. Surely no 250 OK 123 qp 456 has come out of qmail?
Is this a spamdyke issue or a qmail issue?
Cheers,
Chris Robinson
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http