> I have no wishes, I give people on this list, esp anyone running > 500K/msgs day and who has been in contact about their problem > directly with Ipswitch, the respect of the benefit of the doubt to > be worth their salary.
I hope others recognize that you've just said that anyone who posts to this list with system configuration issues, even if they are first-time or part-time mail admins who know a lot more about _non-mail_ IT than you, isn't "worth their salary" if s/he doesn't know how to size a mailserver. You still cannot answer the point that someone who's running a server that "cannot be defragged" obviously does not have a full command of their server configuration. Ditto for somebody who finally segregated their logs after "some time" with issues. And ditto for somebody who does not post the distribution of I/O functions, partitions, RAID levels, et al. when establishing their scenario. Whether or not management expects them to handle high traffic, the facts provided speak for themselves. >> If the system >>has undergone mailserver-specific and >> site-specific optimization, the >>specific configuration should be easily made available to those you >>are consulting for support. > ok, then make it avaialable. I was talking about the OP making it available. Please reread. How am I going to make their configuration available? >>Please don't try telling me > I don't try telling you anything Then don't quote me, then sell IMGate. I'm impressed with Wietse, but I'm not impressed with your tiresome trolling. >> you've never seen a mailbox server which, >>though adequately protected against inbound SMTP abuse via MX offload, >>is undersized for outbound SMTP > IMGate sites send outbound SMTP (and its DNS load) to IMGate. They do not offload AUTH and IWEBMSG submission to IMGate, and that's a very important part of resource utilization in hosting scenarios, especially with large and remote userbases. If you think writing messages out to disk twice does not bear some scrutiny when sizing a server, you. . . well, you don't know IMail. >>POP3, and IWEBMSG. (Nice strategy in leaving out comment on the optimization of POP3 and IWEBMSG, since you think IMGate is all you need, regardless of client load from on other processes.) > I have yet to have, in about 5 years, a distressed Imail admin come > to me to install IMGate and not have ALL his Imail > reliability/performance problems immediately and permanently solved > with IMGate. So I guess you should just get $600 dollars from everyone on this list and everyone's IMail would be perfectly stable. . . nice business plan. >> At clients' request, I have resized, for example, servers >> originally hosting >>500,000+ POP3/SMTP accounts off a single RAID 5 x 5 array. Postfix was >>the entry point for inbound mail both before and after this >>much-needed upgrade. > postfix or IMGate/postfix? IMGate is Postfix. Lots of people know how to set up Postfix without re-branding it. >>I know you rarely touch IMail servers > you know wrong You've said it yourself, and it's all over the archives. Would you like me to post the URLs? (Actually, I think you challenged me on this before, and I _already_ posted the multiple posts where you say, "I rarely touch IMail.") >>but I'd hope you admit this situation is prevalent. > See my experience above. I remember that, IIRC, Jeff/Ikano had bad > POP3 problems even using a unix box for outbound, but IIRC, he > wasn't using an IMGate -type defense for SMTP inbound. So what I > know about that IKano situation, now years old, is not a > counter-example to all the other postivie experiences I've had with > fixing 100% of Imail problems with IMGate. As I said, we have been called in to tune the slow-to-non-responsive mailbox server farms of big hosting providers who already had MX defenses in place. All you're saying about Ikano is that since they aren't using non-mailbox MXs, they don't contradict your position. That's true, but they don't contradict my position, either. You'd say all they need is IMGate to bring POP3 completely under control--and I'd say dedicated MXs are a must to control for that variable, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if further mailbox server reconfiguration proved necessary. >> > We wiped windows/imail/declude from his MX boxes 2 months ago, I >> > installed IMgate, and his nightmare was over. >> >>Your anti-IMail, anti-Declude stance is old news to me. > I have no anti-Imail bias. I have yet to recommend here or elsewhere > that anybody drop IMail. Of course not. If there weren't any IMail users, where else would you troll for customers, while dropping gratuitous political points to show the respectful and open mind you bring to your customer service? > But one-box solutions are so easily and unnecessarily overwhelmed, > esp in the current, worsening SMTP environment, and especially when > its so easy to have superior, scaelebale multi-box solutions that > permit Imail admins to retain both Imail and their current Imail > boxes for much longer than they had imagined. Like you, I recommend inbound/outbound, non-IMail gateways to protect IMail mailbox servers. I have made this clear many times. Like you, I think that Ipswitch has not tuned the SMTP daemon in their one-box solution to keep up with the times, and that without flexible envelope rejections, much smaller shops than necessary thus have to build out their SMTP infrastructure with other vendors' MTAs; Ipswitch is only hurting itself. Unlike you, I know that those who (a) depend on IMail in high-mailbox-count scenarios and (b) don't/can't present a case for already having sized their server with some eye toward their real traffic patterns may not have all their problems solved by adding gateways. Unlike you, I don't have a financial interest in selling people one particular gateway solution. Therefore, while I acknowledge that PostFix is the definite powerhouse, I will not spread the FUD that implementing MS SMTP, MS SMTP/ORF, or even additional IMail servers if already licensed, will not be a workable solution in many shops. > Several IMGate users have been told point-blank by Ipswitch to fix > their specific Imail problems by installing IMGate. One well known > weakness is Imail's vulnerability to being overwhelmed with unknown > recipient rejections. >>You don't need to plug it on responses to my posts. > Since when do I post exclusively for you, rather than for the entire > list? I actually think you post exclusively for YOU (your ego, your politics, or your wallet, depending on the day). > I post what I post, and whether you like/disagree with it or not is > incredibly irrelevant. If you don't want responses from me, simply > quit butting in to my exchanges with other posters. On a technical list, when somebody gives incorrect supporting information, it's not butting in. --Sandy ------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/ Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases! http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/ http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/release/ 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/
