Well it took me 8 months to convince the owners to fork out 500$ for Declude, If I now go and ask for another machine to run bsd and IMGate they will most likely freak out.
Besides Declude is doing a good job, its really Imail that needs to be improved. If Imail dose such a poor job at handling incoming mail processing then I would think that they should revise the system, Grant we are running 6.06 and I have 7 to be able to install. I have not heard any noise about how much better version 7 handles incoming mail than its predecessors. I will upgrade to 7 right before I rebuild the machine into a raid 5 configuration. I'm in the proccess of cleanning up the NT Database to move those customers to an Imail or even an SQL database. Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: "Len Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:07 PM Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Problem with spool not removeing GSE files > > >Our server currently processes about 160,000 pieces of mail a day. > >The .gse files were becoming a problem for us as there were about > >100 being generated every three minutes or so with virtually all > >being from spam sources with invalid addresses. This equates to > >2,000 an hour, or 48,000 each day. Further, with each pending > >outbound message being queued and tried six times, this works out > >to something like 300,000 SMTP processes a day. Not a good thing. > > Of course not. That's backoffce/plumbing work that should be offloaded from > at box that is directly providing user services. > > The abuse situation is really accelerating. I think as a lot of mail > servers set up defenses, the abusers just keep hosing out more and more > volumes since it's becoming harder for them to deliver the volumes they get > paid for. > > For a mail server with your level of traffic and abuse, you really ought to > think about IMGate. > > >One of my staff members wrote a routine in Visual Basic which runs > >once every five minutes, looking for .gse files which are more than > >three minutes old. By doing this we allow all bounce messages to be > >tried once (so valid bounces are usually delivered) but the others > >are killed before they get tried over and over and over again. (Our > >queue timer is set for 10 minutes on the gateway server.) > > well, that's one approach, but wouldn't the best approach be NOT to have > those tons crap arrive on your users' mailbox server at all?? > > IMgate's mailqueue handling is simply, demonstrably superior to Imail's > single directory approach. > > I helped one Imail ISP last week whose IMGate, which had served for months > without problem, got overpowered by a huge amount of abuse (64 Mb machine, > single ata33 disk). He had 41 K msgs in his mailqueue. All he to do up > to 256 Mb RAM to run more processes. It then took over 12 hours for the > queue to empty to normal levels. For those hours, his single, slow disk > was pegged solid, and new mail was passing through normally as well (IMGate > let's new mail pass through quickly, while deferred mail is handled with > second priority). IMGate never missed a beat, not one message lost, not > one reboot, etc, etc. and now the delay through IMGate is the normal sub-3 > seconds. > > Len > > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
