On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:26:02AM -0600, Kevin McCarthy wrote:
> Version: qmail-ldap-1.03-20031101a.patch
> 
> For some reason, qmail-send and qmail-todo (perhaps) seem to put VERY
> non-unique and incorrect message IDs into the log.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> qmail: 1071345920.730597 new msg 1131286
> qmail: 1071345920.730638 info msg 1131286: bytes 1351 from <...> qp 14662 uid
> 46001
> qmail: 1071345920.735805 starting delivery 295: msg 1131286 to local ...
> qmail: 1071345920.735838 status: local 1/10 remote 1/100
> qmail: 1071345920.751515 delivery 295: success: did_1+0+0/
> qmail: 1071345920.751559 status: local 0/10 remote 1/100
> qmail: 1071345920.751569 end msg 1131286
> 
> qmail: 1071345933.414414 new msg 1131286
> qmail: 1071345933.414456 info msg 1131286: bytes 2586 from <...> qp 14705 uid
> 46001
> qmail: 1071345933.418793 starting delivery 296: msg 1131286 to local ...
> qmail: 1071345933.418829 status: local 1/10 remote 1/100
> qmail: 1071345933.436656 delivery 296: success: did_1+0+0/
> qmail: 1071345933.436701 status: local 0/10 remote 1/100
> qmail: 1071345933.436712 end msg 1131286
> 
> I have tried rebuilding with all combinations of EXTERNAL_TODO and BIGTODO
> (including none at all) and I still get the same results.
> 
> I did recently recompile with ALTQUEUE so I could run SpamAssassin's
> qmail-spamc. Could that be throwing things off?
> 
> I also applied the patch for the case-sensitive locals / rcpthosts bug when
> using CDB.
> 
> Could this indicate problems with the filesystem inode consistency?
> 
> The actual messages DO get uniqe numbers, just not that same number (1131286)
> that appears in the log.
> 

This is a FS issue. The msg entry is the inode number on the file system
and this is reused quite often.
This has nothing to do with qmail/qmail-ldap, this is a OS/fs issue.
There is no easy solution that does not include kernel hacking, sorry.

-- 
:wq Claudio

"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern   
technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Reply via email to