Hi,
i made a full Programm for that incl. an overview for Plesk. If you're
interested i would like
to give it to you. I'm using PHP-CLI and a cron analyzing the logs.
Regards,
David
Marcin Orlowski schrieb:
Jake Briggs wrote:
But seriously, getting simple rough stats from the logs really
Doing this, kind of negates the need for doing it in SpamDyke, except for
maybe a Backup in case Qmail doesn't for some reason.
I think the problem is, some people don't have a timeoutsmtpd file. I had
a Stock Qmailrocks install that did not have it, and apparently, the
Default value used by
Michael,
I had the exact same symptom with multiple users. The problem turned
out to be in ClamAV. There is a DOS exploit in ClamAV that is solved
with an upgrade to 0.91 or later. (see
http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/35367) Upgrading ClamAV solved the
problem for the most part.
I agree
I wasn't trying to say SpamDyke was responsible for the issue I saw, nor
that it would solve anyone's issue... Mearly that by creating the
timeoutsmtpd file that Paulo had mentioned, which seems to not be present in
the Stock Qmailrocks install, and possibly others, seems like it would
trivialize
I was wrong - I *do* have idle-timeout-secs specified as 60.
I'll go ahead and bump it up just above my timoutsmtpd value, and we'll see
what happens.
Sam Clippinger wrote:
I would be very interested to know if that solves your problem, Eric. I
can't see why it would, but since I don't (yet)
The clamav problem shouldn't be coming into play, as I had already upgraded
to clamav-0.92.1 before installing spamdyke. Thanks for the reminder about
that though.
FWIW, the server in question is a PII/266/512 (try not to laugh too hard).
It's load average is typically 0.2 or less though.
Sam
That sounds very interesting indeed.
Please can you add me as being someone who is interested in taking a look?
Thanks,
Faris.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamdyke-users-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Stiller
Sent: 28 April 2008 08:07
To: spamdyke
I don't believe so, but I will check. Like I said, the only time I have any
issues is after some sort of an issue (Bandwidth down, power outage (Don't
ask!), etc. Then, when the server comes back up, all the mail that's been
waiting bombards the server, overloading it, or, just simply from
On 4/28/2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, the server in question is a PII/266/512 (try not to laugh too
hard).
Hey! I have two P2 machines as backup servers, but the primary server
is a P1/150/128 (10 years old next month) that is showing some
overloading strains but otherwise has run
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 01:03:11PM -0400, Steve Cole wrote:
So, after having one of the #qmail EFNet guys melt down on me today when I
asked if anyone has taken on the task of building qmail 2.0 since DJB has
released the source code to public domain, I figured this might be a decent
place
You can still decrease the number of connections you handle in tcpserver
(or alike). This will give you a cap on max loadlevel...
Regards
Bgs
Michael Colvin wrote:
I don't believe so, but I will check. Like I said, the only time I have any
issues is after some sort of an issue (Bandwidth
Hi David,
i am interested too :)
Regards,
Arne
Faris Raouf schrieb:
That sounds very interesting indeed.
Please can you add me as being someone who is interested in taking a look?
Thanks,
Faris.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamdyke-users-
[EMAIL
12 matches
Mail list logo
