qmail Digest 12 Apr 1999 10:00:00 -0000 Issue 608
Topics (messages 24124 through 24158):
qmail speed
24124 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorens Kockum)
24125 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24126 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24138 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24154 by: Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24155 by: "Peter C. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24156 by: Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
procmail problem
24127 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24128 by: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24129 by: Richard Letts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24130 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail IMAP4 Setup Instruction
24131 by: Greg Owen {gowen} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24132 by: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24134 by: "Postmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24135 by: Eric Ess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24137 by: "Greg Owen {gowen}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24150 by: Todd at NM Technet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Queue limit question
24133 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24136 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24139 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24140 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24141 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24142 by: "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24143 by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24144 by: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24149 by: Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24152 by: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24153 by: Matthew Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mailman mail list and rcpthosts
24145 by: Bob Ruddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24146 by: Chris Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24147 by: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
maildir setup.
24148 by: Andy Walden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Qmail, IMAP, POP
24151 by: "Brad (Senior Systems Administrator - Americanisp, LLC.)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
adding a header to all e-mail
24157 by: Tim Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24158 by: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -0000, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>>> Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
>
>Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it, so Bcc or not is
of no concern, is it?
Say you're running a list with 20000 subscribers, you cat the
mail to qmail-inject with as many recipients as possible, no?
>Since the invocation happens just the once for the all recipients, there is
>no advantage to using qmail-queue (and some disadvantages if you ask me).
40000 e-mail addresses would make for some small problems ...
have to split it up somewhat, I'd say.
>On the matter of comparison to spammers,
I'd prefer "serious mailing-list" ...
>here's what you need to do to get
>comparable results:
>
>1. Turn off all disk I/O
Me too.
>2. Ignore the SMTP transaction
?
>3. Don't care if a recipient sees the mail zero or more times
No good for a mailing-list
>4. Ignore system and network failures
Hmm... Disregard the possibility of your system failing, but a
serious mailing-list can't ignore remote systems failing.
>If you want to go part way down this path I suggest putting /var/qmail/queue
>on a memory-based file system rather than twiddling fsync() calls in the code.
Sounds good.
>FWIW. The best I've seen out of a single box Pentium with one or two high
>speed spindles is around 100K per hour. The systems tend to run out of queue
>disk I/O. (This of course is gross generalization as most people will
>realise, but it gives a ballpark expectation for an unmodified qmail system).
Therefore memory-based fs, yes.
>>> I'm envisioning using xargs to distribute the rcpt addresses to
>
>No point. Put the recipients in bcc: headers and only invoke qmail-inject
>the once.
So if there is a Bcc: header in the mail catted to qmail-inject,
it will be used and discarded, right?
--
#include <std_disclaim.h> Lorens Kockum
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorens Kockum):
| On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >>On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -0000, Lorens Kockum wrote:
| >>> Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
| >
| >Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
|
| qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it,
Yes it does, more than any other program in the qmail suite.
| so Bcc or not is of no concern, is it?
Only in that supplying addresses in a Bcc field requires qmail-inject
to parse that Bcc field; supplying recpipients on the command line
ought to be slightly faster. Check the -a argument to qmail-inject.
- Harald
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> A short-term, special purpose fix for "customized spam" applications
> would be a high-speed queuer that does the queuing and preprocessing
> of qmail-queue and qmail-send. E.g.,
>
> 1) stop qmail
> 2) invoke custom queuer which:
> a) puts cutomized message in queue/mess/NNN/MMM
> b) puts envelope sender in queue/info/NNN/MMM
> c) puts recipient in queue/remote/NNN/MMM
> 3) restart qmail
>
> Cuts out all the preprocessing junk: rewriting addresses, deciding if
> local or remote, todo files, etc. Avoids all the work necessary to
> keep the queue sane during the injection process.
personlyy, I think it would be quicker to write a perl script to fire off
lots of qmail-remote in parallel for each recipient, and if there's an
error report pass the message off to qmail-queue for it to process. we're
talking about cutting out all of the queue processing, much disk i/o for
most recipients
RjL
At 01:38 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -0000, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>>>> Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
>>
>>Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
>
>qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it, so Bcc or not is
>of no concern, is it?
Incorrect. qmail-inject is *the* program that does look at headers. How did
you deduce the above after reading the man page for qmail-inject?
>Say you're running a list with 20000 subscribers, you cat the
>mail to qmail-inject with as many recipients as possible, no?
>
>>Since the invocation happens just the once for the all recipients, there is
>>no advantage to using qmail-queue (and some disadvantages if you ask me).
>
>40000 e-mail addresses would make for some small problems ...
>have to split it up somewhat, I'd say.
Incorrect. This is precisely how a "serious mailing-list" does it. Namely
ezmlm. Admittedly via qmail-queue, but the queue insertion costs and
sequences are the same.
>>On the matter of comparison to spammers,
>
>I'd prefer "serious mailing-list" ...
>
>>here's what you need to do to get
>>comparable results:
>>
>>1. Turn off all disk I/O
>
>Me too.
>
>>2. Ignore the SMTP transaction
>
>?
>
>>3. Don't care if a recipient sees the mail zero or more times
>
>No good for a mailing-list
>
>>4. Ignore system and network failures
>
>Hmm... Disregard the possibility of your system failing, but a
>serious mailing-list can't ignore remote systems failing.
You miss the point entirely. A spammer can get better "performance"
precisely because they don't need to worry about such things. A real list
cannot - as you re-state.
>>FWIW. The best I've seen out of a single box Pentium with one or two high
>>speed spindles is around 100K per hour. The systems tend to run out of queue
>>disk I/O. (This of course is gross generalization as most people will
>>realise, but it gives a ballpark expectation for an unmodified qmail system).
>
>Therefore memory-based fs, yes.
Nope. Memory-base fs don't tend to have high speed spindles I don't reckon.
>>>> I'm envisioning using xargs to distribute the rcpt addresses to
>>
>>No point. Put the recipients in bcc: headers and only invoke qmail-inject
>>the once.
>
>So if there is a Bcc: header in the mail catted to qmail-inject,
>it will be used and discarded, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "used and discarded". Perhaps you should take
a closer look at the qmail-inject man page. That will answer these sort of
questions. But perhaps you mean that bcc: isn't retained in the outgoing
email header - correct. That's precisely why I suggested it rather than to:
or cc:
Regards.
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 04:05:54PM +0200, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
> | so Bcc or not is of no concern, is it?
>
> Only in that supplying addresses in a Bcc field requires qmail-inject
> to parse that Bcc field; supplying recpipients on the command line
> ought to be slightly faster. Check the -a argument to qmail-inject.
On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
to put all the recipients in.
--
Bruce Guenter, QCC Communications Corp. EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (306)249-0220 WWW: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:49:22PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
> single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
> to put all the recipients in.
That's what xargs is for.
--
The 5 year plan:
In five years we'll make up another plan.
Or just re-use this one.
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:04:50AM -0400, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> > On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
> > single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
> > to put all the recipients in.
> That's what xargs is for.
Unless you want to have exactly one message for all the recipients.
Having said that, using xargs would probably still give you at least
1000 recipients per message (assuming a conservative 32K space for
command line arguments and ~30 character email addresses) which is lots
for most purposes.
--
Bruce Guenter, QCC Communications Corp. EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (306)249-0220 WWW: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/
Sorry to post is here, but I am getting tons of messages in my logs that look like
this:
status: local 10/10 remote 4/20
delivery 64: deferral:
procmail:_Out_of_memory/buffer_0:_"13739"/buffer_1:_""/preline:_fatal:_unable_to_copy_input:_broken_pipe/
There is over 200 megs of memory free, so I don't know why it would be out of memory.
I checked the queue, and there aren't any messages larger than 200 megs..
--Adam
+ "Adam D. McKenna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Sorry to post is here, but I am getting tons of messages in my logs
| that look like this:
|
| status: local 10/10 remote 4/20
| delivery 64: deferral:
|procmail:_Out_of_memory/buffer_0:_"13739"/buffer_1:_""/preline:_fatal:_unable_to_copy_input:_broken_pipe/
|
| There is over 200 megs of memory free, so I don't know why it would
| be out of memory. I checked the queue, and there aren't any
| messages larger than 200 megs..
There may be over 200M free, but that does not help if the per process
limit is set lower. procmail is notorious for reading the entire
message into memory.
- Harald
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> Sorry to post is here, but I am getting tons of messages in my logs that
> look like this:
What does the .qmail file which is being used for the delivery contain?
then the procmail fans can tell what's up...
Richard
nevermind, I fixed the problem.
Thanks to everyone who responded so quickly.
The problem was a (totally) screwed up /var/mail heirarchy, (permissions and
ownership had been changed, pretty much randomly). I still can't figure out why
procmail would give an out of memory error for that though.
--Adam
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
>
> > Sorry to post is here, but I am getting tons of messages in my logs that
> > look like this:
>
> What does the .qmail file which is being used for the delivery contain?
> then the procmail fans can tell what's up...
>
> Richard
>
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Postmaster wrote:
> I am trying to find documentation on setting IMAP4. So far all my
> resources are bleed dry. Can someone point me to where to go for this
> information.
What are you trying to figure out?
1) IMAP4 server? Qmail isn't it. Cyrus and UW are two popular
IMAP4 servers; find pointers to them at http://www.imap.org/.
2) Deliver to IMAP mailboxes? Depends on what server and what
mailbox format you're using, please elaborate.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will
become my default address in March, and which works now.
I have a similar desire, so let me elaborate instead.
Is there any IMAP4 server that reads the Maildir/ format?
Greg Owen {gowen} wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Postmaster wrote:
> > I am trying to find documentation on setting IMAP4. So far all my
> > resources are bleed dry. Can someone point me to where to go for this
> > information.
>
> What are you trying to figure out?
>
> 1) IMAP4 server? Qmail isn't it. Cyrus and UW are two popular
> IMAP4 servers; find pointers to them at http://www.imap.org/.
>
> 2) Deliver to IMAP mailboxes? Depends on what server and what
> mailbox format you're using, please elaborate.
--
___THE___ One man alone cannot fight the future. USE LINUX!
\ \ / / _______________________________________________
\ V / |Juan Carlos Castro y Castro |
\ / |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
/ \ |Linuxeiro, alvinegro, X-Phile e Carioca Folgado|
/ ^ \ |Diretor de Inform�tica e Eventos Sobrenaturais |
/ / \ \ |da E-RACE CORPORATION |
~~~ ~~~ -----------------------------------------------
RACER
I currently have Qmail installed. Through the course of setting up multpile
servers with different operating systems, I had thought that the IMAPd
service on my Linux box was from Qmail. So I guess the problem lies in that
I am using Maildir and the IMAPd service I have does not like it. I guess
what I need is some basics on where to get a IMAP server that can work with
Maildir. I also noticed that others desire the same. From what I have read
elsewhere in the archives, Russell Nelson is working on a IMAP project.
Though I must add that I would rather have the book first. : )
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Postmaster wrote:
> I am trying to find documentation on setting IMAP4. So far all my
> resources are bleed dry. Can someone point me to where to go for this
> information.
What are you trying to figure out?
1) IMAP4 server? Qmail isn't it. Cyrus and UW are two popular
IMAP4 servers; find pointers to them at http://www.imap.org/.
2) Deliver to IMAP mailboxes? Depends on what server and what
mailbox format you're using, please elaborate.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will
become my default address in March, and which works now.
> I have a similar desire, so let me elaborate instead.
> Is there any IMAP4 server that reads the Maildir/ format?
> Greg Owen {gowen} wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Postmaster wrote:
> > > I am trying to find documentation on setting IMAP4. So far all my
> > > resources are bleed dry. Can someone point me to where to go for this
> > > information.
> >
> > What are you trying to figure out?
> >
> > 1) IMAP4 server? Qmail isn't it. Cyrus and UW are two popular
> > IMAP4 servers; find pointers to them at http://www.imap.org/.
> >
> > 2) Deliver to IMAP mailboxes? Depends on what server and what
> > mailbox format you're using, please elaborate.
> --
> ___THE___ One man alone cannot fight the future. USE LINUX!
> \ \ / / _______________________________________________
> \ V / |Juan Carlos Castro y Castro |
> \ / |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> / \ |Linuxeiro, alvinegro, X-Phile e Carioca Folgado|
> / ^ \ |Diretor de Inform�tica e Eventos Sobrenaturais |
> / / \ \ |da E-RACE CORPORATION |
> ~~~ ~~~ -----------------------------------------------
> RACER
The WU IMAP server supports Maildir once you use the patch available at qmail.org
Resources:
http://www.washington.edu/pine/
http://www.freeit.com/mta/
ftp://summersoft.fay.ar.us/pub/qmail/ <- Great place.
BTW: If anyone knows how to extend the default amount of time clients have to download
a message before timing out, please let me know!
Regards,
Eric Ess
Consultant, MCP, GMT
Ornaco Technologies
GoldMine� GoldSync� Solution Provider - "Turn Your Contacts Into
Gold!�"
www.ornaco.com
7095 Hollywood Blvd. #874
Hollywood, CA, 90028
(323) 512-4119
FAX (323) 850-0366
Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
> I have a similar desire, so let me elaborate instead.
>
> Is there any IMAP4 server that reads the Maildir/ format?
"Postmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I guess the problem lies in that I am using Maildir and the
> IMAPd service I have does not like it. I guess what I need is
> some basics on where to get a IMAP server that can work with
> Maildir.
I can't speak for the commercial servers (I think Communigate Pro, in
particular, prides itself on being a polyglot; that's worth looking into).
Cyrus IMAP server does not; never will. Cyrus uses their own mail
format which is only accessible via Cyrus IMAPd. It is by design a sealed
server.
UW IMAP server does not support Maildir *as distributed*, but there are
rumours of patches floating around which will add it. My brain cells
remember a recent thread on comp.mail.imap which discussed this, and Marc
Crispin (author of UW) basically said "I won't add Maildir" for whatever
reasons. (DejaNews fails to confirm my brain cells in this, so take that
for what its worth).
You're probably running UW-IMAP, and your best bet is to try and find a
patch for it that will do Maildir. Searching comp.mail.imap archvies on
Dejanews might help, as might asking on that group, if you can't find
anything searching.
[new mail arrives]
Nevermind -- as Eric Ess has pointed out, the UW->Maildir patches are
available via the qmail web site...
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will
become my default address in March, and which works now.
folx,
i have had fairly bad luck with the maildir patches to the UW server and
have been wondering if anyone else has these troubles:
-create didn't work as patch. had to do considerable work to change the
create method.
-mbox driver had to be deleted from the driver hierarchy in order to work
-pine4 as patched and UW as patched who each maildir as *both* a mailbox
(in the imap sens) and a folder of mailboxes (in the imap sense).
-renaming folders doesn't work.
i'm not trying to be picky but these seem like fairly basic functions so
i'm wondering if i'm just doing something wrong or if no one is really
running UW IMAP with maildirs in any production situation.
more feedback desired, truly.
todd underwood
systems
nm technet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Greg Owen {gowen} wrote:
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 15:31:17 -0400
> From: Greg Owen {gowen} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Qmail IMAP4 Setup Instruction
>
> Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
> > I have a similar desire, so let me elaborate instead.
> >
> > Is there any IMAP4 server that reads the Maildir/ format?
>
> "Postmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I guess the problem lies in that I am using Maildir and the
> > IMAPd service I have does not like it. I guess what I need is
> > some basics on where to get a IMAP server that can work with
> > Maildir.
>
> I can't speak for the commercial servers (I think Communigate Pro, in
> particular, prides itself on being a polyglot; that's worth looking into).
>
> Cyrus IMAP server does not; never will. Cyrus uses their own mail
> format which is only accessible via Cyrus IMAPd. It is by design a sealed
> server.
>
> UW IMAP server does not support Maildir *as distributed*, but there are
> rumours of patches floating around which will add it. My brain cells
> remember a recent thread on comp.mail.imap which discussed this, and Marc
> Crispin (author of UW) basically said "I won't add Maildir" for whatever
> reasons. (DejaNews fails to confirm my brain cells in this, so take that
> for what its worth).
>
> You're probably running UW-IMAP, and your best bet is to try and find a
> patch for it that will do Maildir. Searching comp.mail.imap archvies on
> Dejanews might help, as might asking on that group, if you can't find
> anything searching.
>
> [new mail arrives]
> Nevermind -- as Eric Ess has pointed out, the UW->Maildir patches are
> available via the qmail web site...
>
> --
> gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Please note my new [EMAIL PROTECTED] address which will
> become my default address in March, and which works now.
>
>
>
>
Since we're on the subject of speed recently, is there a way limit the size of
the message queue in qmail?
Here's my situation: I'm sending out a large list of messages and it certainly
seems like the queueing process operates much faster than the smtp process
which results in a large number of messages in the queue. This has got to
slow things down so I thought it would be nice if I could limit the queue
size to say 200 messages at a time. Is this possible?
This would also be nice for some error recovery if I decide to put the whole
queue directory on a ramdisk. After all, if it crashes I've just lost all
traceability on my mailing list.
Is the syslog-alternative program for qmail (I can't think of it's name right
now) a great deal faster? I also presently have syslog turned off for
everything beyond major errors because it was causing a serious load on my
system.
--
Matthew Harrell Another Month's End:
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC All Targets Met
[EMAIL PROTECTED] All Systems Working
All Customers Satisfied
All Staff Enthusiastic
All Pigs Fed And Ready To Fly
: Since we're on the subject of speed recently, is there a way limit the size of
: the message queue in qmail?
I forgot to mention another reason I wanted to do this - if I put my whole
queue on a ramdisk then I'm obviously limited by the amount of RAM I have. It
certainly wouldn't be foolproof to limit it to n messages but it's better than
nothing.
--
Matthew Harrell Beauty is in the eye of the beer
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC holder.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In general, no. You would need to wrapper qmail-queue to implement your own
version of quotas.
At 03:22 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>: Since we're on the subject of speed recently, is there a way limit the
>size of
>: the message queue in qmail?
>
>I forgot to mention another reason I wanted to do this - if I put my whole
>queue on a ramdisk then I'm obviously limited by the amount of RAM I have. It
>certainly wouldn't be foolproof to limit it to n messages but it's better than
>nothing.
>
>--
> Matthew Harrell Beauty is in the eye of the beer
> Simulation Technology Division, SAIC holder.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Delany was overheard saying:
: In general, no. You would need to wrapper qmail-queue to implement your own
: version of quotas.
Okay, and I'm not saying this is a good idea, but if I try it is there a good
way to tell how many messages or what size the queue presently is? I could
probably write my own but if some kind of capability is already build in then
I should probably use it.
--
Matthew Harrell Gravity is a myth, the Earth sucks.
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You may want to have syslog log to a log host.
That way it doesn't fsync on your machine.
Dirk
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 03:06:13PM -0400, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>
> Since we're on the subject of speed recently, is there a way limit the size of
> the message queue in qmail?
>
> Here's my situation: I'm sending out a large list of messages and it certainly
> seems like the queueing process operates much faster than the smtp process
> which results in a large number of messages in the queue. This has got to
> slow things down so I thought it would be nice if I could limit the queue
> size to say 200 messages at a time. Is this possible?
>
> This would also be nice for some error recovery if I decide to put the whole
> queue directory on a ramdisk. After all, if it crashes I've just lost all
> traceability on my mailing list.
>
> Is the syslog-alternative program for qmail (I can't think of it's name right
> now) a great deal faster? I also presently have syslog turned off for
> everything beyond major errors because it was causing a serious load on my
> system.
>
> --
> Matthew Harrell Another Month's End:
> Simulation Technology Division, SAIC All Targets Met
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] All Systems Working
> All Customers Satisfied
> All Staff Enthusiastic
> All Pigs Fed And Ready To Fly
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 01:03:47PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You may want to have syslog log to a log host.
> That way it doesn't fsync on your machine.
>
> Dirk
why use syslog at all? use cyclog.
--Adam
What are the advantages/disadvantages of cyclog over syslog?
Dirk
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 04:15:05PM -0400, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 01:03:47PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You may want to have syslog log to a log host.
> > That way it doesn't fsync on your machine.
> >
> > Dirk
>
> why use syslog at all? use cyclog.
>
> --Adam
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 15:57:28 -0400, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>Okay, and I'm not saying this is a good idea, but if I try it is there a good
>way to tell how many messages or what size the queue presently is? I could
>probably write my own but if some kind of capability is already build in then
>I should probably use it.
qmail-qstat tells you how many messages.
du /var/qmail/queue tells you how much space.
-Sincerely, Fred
(Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
At 03:57 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>Mark Delany was overheard saying:
>: In general, no. You would need to wrapper qmail-queue to implement your own
>: version of quotas.
>
>Okay, and I'm not saying this is a good idea, but if I try it is there a good
>way to tell how many messages or what size the queue presently is? I could
>probably write my own but if some kind of capability is already build in then
>I should probably use it.
Above and beyond the standard reporting programs -qstat and -qread, I
haven't heard of anything especially. The question is, how do you want to
constrain users?
Is it X message per day, X messages in the queue at any one time, X
megabytes per day, X megabytes in the queue at any one time? Will you need
to keep a history of what they have done? Will you want to differentiate
between users such as any lists or system processes you're running?
Regards.
Matthew Harrell writes:
> which results in a large number of messages in the queue. This has got to
> slow things down
It doesn't.
> This would also be nice for some error recovery if I decide to put the whole
> queue directory on a ramdisk. After all, if it crashes I've just lost all
> traceability on my mailing list.
That's why it's on the disk.
> Is the syslog-alternative program for qmail (I can't think of it's name right
> now) a great deal faster?
Yes. That's the first thing to replace when you've got a high load.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
: Above and beyond the standard reporting programs -qstat and -qread, I
: haven't heard of anything especially. The question is, how do you want to
: constrain users?
:
: Is it X message per day, X messages in the queue at any one time, X
: megabytes per day, X megabytes in the queue at any one time? Will you need
: to keep a history of what they have done? Will you want to differentiate
: between users such as any lists or system processes you're running?
At the moment, I was thinking of X MB in the queue at any one time.
At history would be nice, but not necessary. I can always find my own way log
logging but it would usually be nice to see a standard, fast way of doing it.
I'll have to examine cyclog and see if it does the kinds of things I'm looking
for.
In general, no I wouldn't want to differentiate between the users. This is
a system of three Linux boxes tasked with the large mail requirements for a
client who primarily uses NT. For the most part they don't know how or what
to do on the systems and they don't mind that at all. Almost everything they
do is from some automated interfaces I set up.
--
Matthew Harrell Hackers are just a migratory
Simulation Technology Division, SAIC lifeform with a tropism for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] computers.
I am setting up the mailman mail list on my system. It looks like it will
work very well. I'm only having one trouble. Here is a clip from my
mailman smtp-failure log
Apr 11 17:19:32 1999 TrySMTPDelivery: To [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Apr 11 17:19:32 1999 TrySMTPDelivery: Mailman.pythonlib.smtplib.SMTPRecipientsRefused
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) (dequeued)
I then added netswift.com to my rcpthosts and it worked. My box is
udlug.org. My question is how to I configure qmail to allow mailman to
send mail to anyone. It works sending mail to local users but that is it.
I'm running the smtp part of qmail through inetd but I am looking at
tcpserver now. Thanks for your help
Bob
PS qmail is great! I set it up about 10 months ago and havn't had to touch
it till now.
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 05:38:24PM -0400, Bob Ruddy wrote:
>
> I am setting up the mailman mail list on my system. It looks like it will
> work very well. I'm only having one trouble. Here is a clip from my
> mailman smtp-failure log
>
>
> Apr 11 17:19:32 1999 TrySMTPDelivery: To [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Apr 11 17:19:32 1999 TrySMTPDelivery:
>Mailman.pythonlib.smtplib.SMTPRecipientsRefused / [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) (dequeued)
>
> I then added netswift.com to my rcpthosts and it worked. My box is
> udlug.org. My question is how to I configure qmail to allow mailman to
> send mail to anyone. It works sending mail to local users but that is it.
> I'm running the smtp part of qmail through inetd but I am looking at
> tcpserver now. Thanks for your help
See http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html
Chris
Bob Ruddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I then added netswift.com to my rcpthosts and it worked. My box is
> udlug.org. My question is how to I configure qmail to allow mailman to
> send mail to anyone. It works sending mail to local users but that is
> it. I'm running the smtp part of qmail through inetd but I am looking
> at tcpserver now. Thanks for your help
Looks like mailman wants to talk to everything via SMTP. If you can't
convince it that that's stupid and it should use qmail-inject or the
sendmail emulation, you'll need to use tcpserver and create a rules
database that allows relaying from localhost. Information on how to do
that is in the FAQ.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
I'm setting up maildir on my system and am running into the error:
Apr 11 16:51:20 leviathan qmail: 923867480.948642 delivery 2: deferral:
Temporary_error_on_maildir_delivery._(#4.3.0)/
This a permissions thing or what? Thanks. -andy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walden Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator, Pers Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTCO Communications Phone: (800) 859-6826
" Reality is just Chaos with better lighting. "
I have qmail with pop3 and Maildir's.
Would like it if we can run IMAP, along with the pop3 and
smtp.
Any pointers, FAQ's or man's out there on this type of
setup?
Thanks,
Brad
Americanisp
This must be a simple thing to do but I can't seem to find a good solution
around it.
I'd like to be able to add a header to all incoming e-mail (only remotely
generated is necessary so it can be through qmail-smtpd). What is the
simplest/cleanest way to do this?
I am aware of the .qmail approach, but it seems like I'd have to do this
for every domain. Is there a *global* .qmail-default, or can you force
qmail-local to use a global qmail-command instead of the one in the
recipient's home directory?
I'd rather NOT modify any of qmail's stock distribution (either modifying
qmail-local, for example, or renaming it and running something before
it's actually called) if possible.
Thanks,
Tim
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 03:01:42AM -0500, Tim Tsai wrote:
Look at your qmail-start line. It goes something like:
qmail-start ./Mailbox splogger qmail
The part "./Mailbox" is a default instruction to follow for any user who
does not have a .qmail file. You could replace it with a small script that
inserts the header of your choice. However, that default instruction will
be overridden by a user if they create their own .qmail files. Instead of
using your own script to insert the header, you might want to investigate
procmail or maildrop. These are mail delivery agents which come with tools
to insert headers. An example using maildrop is:
qmail-start '|preline reformail -A"X-Header: my header" | \
maildrop -f "$SENDER"' splogger qmail
This one uses the reformail program from the maildrop package to add a
header, and then passes the message to maildrop to actually deliver it.
If you really want to add a header to *all* email regardless of user's own
.qmail files, you'll have to use the the "fixup" method as described in FAQ
5.5
> This must be a simple thing to do but I can't seem to find a good solution
> around it.
>
> I'd like to be able to add a header to all incoming e-mail (only remotely
> generated is necessary so it can be through qmail-smtpd). What is the
> simplest/cleanest way to do this?
>
> I am aware of the .qmail approach, but it seems like I'd have to do this
> for every domain. Is there a *global* .qmail-default, or can you force
> qmail-local to use a global qmail-command instead of the one in the
> recipient's home directory?
--
System Administrator
See complete headers for address, homepage and phone numbers
