Thanks for verifying this. And thanks to Dossy for delving into this. He appears to have a good handle on the situation. I'm eager to hear what he finds.
On 06/10/2011 09:49 AM, ron wrote: > Yes, it does work. > Dossy has been doing work with the client directly, she has been > emailing him > as tests also and so far he has confirmed that the issue is with > spamdyke TLS > from what I have gathered. > > > On 6/10/2011 12:20 PM, Eric Shubert wrote: >> I'm under the impression that if you use >> tls-level=none >> in your spamdyke config, then it works. If you haven't tried this, >> please do. >> >> On 06/10/2011 09:11 AM, ron wrote: >>> When I disable spamdyke, qmail accepts the emails just fine, its when >>> spamdyke is enabled that >>> the emails can not be received. Cert or no cert I wouldnt think makes a >>> difference, right? >>> >>> >>> On 6/10/2011 11:15 AM, Jose Galvez wrote: >>>> But the first thing is to know where dosen't work. >>>> >>>> Keep out certificate, try to send email and if it works qmail and >>>> spamdyke configuration it's correct. >>>> >>>> And then try to use the certificate... >>>> >>>> It's my opinion. >>>> >>>> Jose >>>> >>>> >>>> 2011/6/10 Eric Shubert<e...@shubes.net>: >>>>> I think Ron's in the process of trying a cert signed by a registered CA >>>>> instead of using a self signed cert. >>>>> >>>>> On 06/10/2011 07:50 AM, Jose Galvez wrote: >>>>>> Have you used your mail server without ssl certificate? >>>>>> What message appears at the side of your customer? Can you share that >>>>>> with us? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jose >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2011/6/10 Eric Shubert<e...@shubes.net>: >>>>>>> Ron eliminated softlimit entirely, and still has the error. >>>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion though. >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -Eric 'shubes' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06/10/2011 05:11 AM, BC wrote: >>>>>>>> There is something else amiss here, from my reading of the logs. If >>>>>>>> there is gobs of memory available, then do as Sam suggests and >>>>>>>> allocate a LOT - say 300mb to the softlimit and retest. I'd wager >>>>>>>> there will still be troubles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2011 11:54 AM, spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote: >>>>>>>>> So instead of hitting the spamdyke timeout, it hit a timeout on the >>>>>>>>> i/o >>>>>>>>> operation. Still doesn't point to the root cause. :( >>>>>>>>> Why softlimit doesn't issue some sort of error message is beyond me. >>>>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>> still inclined to ditch it. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> spamdyke-users mailing list >>>>>>> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org >>>>>>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Eric 'shubes' >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >> -- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
