Hi,
The default concurrencyincoming is 40, once my
concurrencyincoming reach 40/40, the problem occurs.
When I do a telnet mail_server_ip 25 in a command
prompt, it will be idle and the SMTP banner will never
show up. So, what is the best value for
concurrencyincoming should I set?
Regards,
rootlinux
--- Jamie Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah, you have to re-compile perl from src with
> suid/setuid support..
> :-( ...just download latest perl source, and do:
> 'Configure', instead of
> 'Configure -de' and say "yes" when it asks if you
> want suid/setuid
> support... (that is, if it's not working for you
> already... depending on
> the distro/package your using, it may work already..
> it depends.. I had
> to recompile perl from scratch.. but worth it to get
> rid of suidperl
> anyhow..
>
> it's a pain in the butt, but you should know by now
> if it works if you
> watch the qmail-queue.log, because it will fail
> completely if your perl
> binary doesnt have the suid support built in...
>
> hope that helps..
>
> jamie
>
> root linux wrote:
> > I noticed that qmail-scanner 1.22 uses "perl" and
> my
> > previous qmail-scanner 1.16 uses "suidper"
> >
> > Any difference?
> >
> > Regards,
> > rootlinux
> >
> >
> > --- Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu May 20 2004 03:59 am, root linux wrote:
> >>
> >>although the time in process says no, it could
> very
> >>well be. we explored many
> >>packages both free and commercial trial versions
> >>until we found one fast
> >>enough to fit our needs. most were intolerably
> slow.
> >>by that i mean they took
> >>only a few seconds to process but that was too
> slow.
> >>we were looking for
> >>something to average under a second on all but the
> >>largest attachments.
> >>
> >>one way to do this would be to , for a few seconds
> >>anyway, disable the virus
> >>scanner in qmail-scanner-queue.pl and watch if it
> >>returns your processing
> >>times to normal.
> >>
> >>i have also seen definition files cause severe
> >>slowdowns in a/v scanners, and
> >>soon as they were replaced, the problem went away.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Could it be the antivirus processing problem? I
> >>
> >>am
> >>
> >>>using Virus Scan for Linux v4.24.0
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>rootlinux
> >>>
> >>>--- Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed May 19 2004 12:46 pm, root linux wrote:
> >>>>hmm.. if it is any consolation, and i dont know
> >>
> >>if
> >>
> >>>>anyone else experienced
> >>>>this, but our incoming attempted mail volume
> >>>>increased at least 100% or more
> >>>>this past week. it is starting to level back off
> >>
> >>a
> >>
> >>>>bit now though. to be
> >>>>honest. i personally think that is not enough
> >>
> >>ram to
> >>
> >>>>properly run a fully set
> >>>>up qmail system that is used by the public. from
> >>
> >>my
> >>
> >>>>personal experience with
> >>>>it, i would not attempt to run a public server
> >>
> >>in
> >>
> >>>>less than 640mb ram.
> >>>>private server could probably get away with it
> >>
> >>at
> >>
> >>>>256. hmm maybe a definition
> >>>>of what i mean is wise.. to me a public server
> >>
> >>means
> >>
> >>>> run at an isp or
> >>>>similar handling a few thousand 'home' domains.
> >>>>private would mean 1 or 2
> >>>>domains in an office or home environment.
> >>>>
> >>>>the machine has enough processor power. more
> >>
> >>than
> >>
> >>>>enough. if you watch the
> >>>>processor usage you will see it hardly rises due
> >>
> >>to
> >>
> >>>>its speed in handling
> >>>>what little it has to.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>what may be interesting too is to watch your
> >>
> >>smtp
> >>
> >>>>log and see how many smtp
> >>>>threads are running average and what your total
> >>>>allowed is. if they are
> >>>>always building up to the max, your rbl may be
> >>>>taking too long. we sometimes
> >>>>see that.. we run rblsmtpd with spamcop,
> >>
> >>spamhaus
> >>
> >>>>and ordb. sometimes when
> >>>>they start gumming up the works, one of them may
> >>
> >>be
> >>
> >>>>timing out etc, we just
> >>>>eliminate that one for a day or so.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>This is an Intel P3 1GHz with 256MB of RAM
> >>>>>
> >>>>>But it performed ok since this week...bad
> >>
> >>things
> >>
> >>>>>happened, :(
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>rootlinux
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Wed May 19 2004 11:54 am, root linux
> >>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>hmm. odd. i am going to top-answer this one
> >>
> >>due
> >>
> >>>>to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>its length. tail the queue
> >>>>>>log and see if you can manually notice the
> >>>>
> >>>>delay.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>according to the av scanner
> >>>>>>it only took .5 secs to complete its scan
> >>
> >>yet
> >>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>entire thing took 11
> >>>>>>seconds? very odd. the most i have ever seen
> >>
> >>our
> >>
> >>>>>>system take was about 2
> >>>>>>seconds when it had to unzip an 18mb file
> >>>>
> >>>>attachment
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g.
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
Qmail-scanner-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
