Les, Thanks for the help..
Quoting Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, 2006-06-24 at 07:55, Steve Campbell wrote: > > > I configured sendmail using mostly domains as the criteria for everything. > As > > you both know, there are quite a few different ways of setting up sendmail > to > > recognize who is local, what should be relayed, how to define the path for > the > > relay to the next server, etc. So in my case, if email comes in to the > primary > > MX for a domain, it knows by the domain name, that it should use the local > > delivery to the mailbox. If mail arrives on the backup MX, it knows it > should > > relay it, and where to relay it, because of the domain the mail is > addressed to. > > If the user turnover isn't huge or you can script it, there is > yet another approach that might work. On the secondary, use > virtusertable with entries like: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > @domain1 error:nouser No such user here > > That gives basically the same effect as using the > access file with a default deny, but is more flexible > if you want to forward some mail to different locations. Good idea, also. As I mentioned, sendmail provides a lot of different ways to do the same thing. Right now, I use virtusertable mostly for handling duplicate-named virtual users on the same server. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seems everybody wants the same email user name. > > > These servers are pretty hefty, and are rarely down. My load problems are > mostly > > due to the buildup sendmail process of non-deliverable mail, not delivery > of > > real mail. > > I wonder if you really have some other problem, like internal > machines sending viruses or spam. If you just shut down your > secondary so the primary doesn't have to generate undeliverable > bounces for unknown users most of this should go away. There > really isn't that much value in having a second MX anyway if > you aren't down a lot. The sending mailers will queue and > retry anyway. I'm not certain that the pending mail is completely the problem. I don't think there is any viruses getting through. I don't think it has been rooted (knock on wood). I do know a couple of things about the situation, but I'm not sure what it is telling me. If I get rid of the pending bounce files, Load average drops to a much normal figure for a while. "top", though, shows Bitdefender and ClamAV taking up most of my resources, but it LA isn't always high when these are running. So I'm not sure what all of this is telling me. The second server, primary for the other domains, secondary for the domain on the problem server, gets about the same amount of mail, has the same OS and applications, is set up the same way, and is an identical machine hardware-wise, yet it's load seldom shows and backlog (< 2.0, usually around 1.0). The problem machine floats around 5.0, and starts climbing above 7.0 whenever sendmail has to do anything. Sorry this has turned into such an OT type sendmail thread, but I think its very interesting, and really appreciate all the input. Thanks, Steve > > -- > Les Mikesell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above > message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. > > Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com > MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
