[qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread sub-qp-stuff
I would think that a qpsmtpd system might not be able to handle as much throughput as a stock qmail system, due to the amount of up front processing that it does. Obviously, each qpsmtpd system is going to be different, depending on what plugins admins choose to use with them. I

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread Ask Bjørn Hansen
On Sep 18, 2006, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am wondering if someone else has similar hardware, what kind of a userbase they are supporting with it. Similarly, if someone is supporting about 10,000 users, what hardware they are using. What kind of users?Some users

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread Lars Roland
On 9/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think that a qpsmtpd system might not be able to handle as much throughput as a stock qmail system, due to the amount of up front processing that it does. Obviously, each qpsmtpd system is going to be different, depending on

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread Leonardo Helman
Lars, are you calling clam, SA kaspersky directly from qpsmtpd? or using some other schema (like MailScanner or others?) The forkserver didn't handle my traffic well. Now I'm trying the preforking version (thanks Lars), and it seems to work a lot better -- Leonardo Helman Pert Consultores

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread sub-qp-stuff
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Ask Bj?rn Hansen wrote: On Sep 18, 2006, at 11:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am wondering if someone else has similar hardware, what kind of a userbase they are supporting with it. Similarly, if someone is supporting about 10,000 users, what hardware they are

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread sub-qp-stuff
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Lars Roland wrote: On 9/19/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think that a qpsmtpd system might not be able to handle as much throughput as a stock qmail system, due to the amount of up front processing that it does. Obviously, each qpsmtpd

require_resolvable_fromhost and numeric MXes in 0.32

2006-09-19 Thread Richard Siddall
Hello, We're running 0.32 and experiencing a problem where the require_resolvable_fromhost plugin appears to be rejecting domains having an MX record with a numeric IP address instead of a host name. I've taken a look at the bugs on rt.perl.org and done a few web searches, and I can't seem to

Re: require_resolvable_fromhost and numeric MXes in 0.32

2006-09-19 Thread Peter J. Holzer
On 2006-09-19 11:23:50 -0400, Richard Siddall wrote: We're running 0.32 and experiencing a problem where the require_resolvable_fromhost plugin appears to be rejecting domains having an MX record with a numeric IP address instead of a host name. That's not a bug, it's a feature :-). It is

Re: require_resolvable_fromhost and numeric MXes in 0.32

2006-09-19 Thread John Peacock
Richard Siddall wrote: We're running 0.32 and experiencing a problem where the require_resolvable_fromhost plugin appears to be rejecting domains having an MX record with a numeric IP address instead of a host name. MX records *must* return a [FQDN] host name, not an IP address or CNAME:

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread Matt Sergeant
On 19-Sep-06, at 11:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I scan 1.2 million emails with qpsmtpd (using clamav, spamassassin and kaspersky) on a single ibm x336 with 2GB ram and two 3.0ghz xeons (netburst based, not core 2) using Debian Sarge and a single 10K SCSI disk. I have found that

Re: require_resolvable_fromhost and numeric MXes in 0.32

2006-09-19 Thread Charles Butcher
Are you perhaps talking about domain literals? E.g. the format [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I run this: http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=your.domain.here against my domains it gives me this: WARNING: One or more of your mailservers does not accept mail in the domain literal

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread sub-qp-stuff
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Matt Sergeant wrote: I seriously recommend you check out running under Apache. I suspect it's the fastest way to run qpsmtpd (barring experimenting with the poll server). It's how apache.org have been running qpsmtpd for a long time now. I'll certainly consider

domain literals (Re: require_resolvable_fromhost and numeric MXes in 0.32)

2006-09-19 Thread Charlie Brady
Hi Charles! On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Charles Butcher wrote: Are you perhaps talking about domain literals? E.g. the format [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... somehost.somedom.net's [EMAIL PROTECTED] response: RCPT TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Relaying denied (#5.7.1) But note that its not

Re: [qpsmtpd] system capacity

2006-09-19 Thread Matt Sergeant
On 19-Sep-06, at 6:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used to run an RBL, and do not trust them. Where I might otherwise do a lot of things if it was just me, the requirements frown on false positives, and those lists are not to be used. Modern DNSBLs aren't like their ugly parents.

Re: domain literals (Re: require_resolvable_fromhost and numeric MXes in 0.32)

2006-09-19 Thread Gordon Rowell
Charlie Brady wrote: [...] If you wish to accept mail for domain literals you will need to configure them in /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts and/or locals. I'd hope that qpsmtpd will do the right thing if you do. And in SME Server land, we only accept [EMAIL PROTECTED] (courtesy of Gavin