Zitat von lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
If you have time, can you try:
stuff = 0.7 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
stuff = 0.9 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
Thanks,
In case that does not help, declaring the
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
If you have time, can you try:
stuff = 0.7 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
stuff = 0.9 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
Thanks,
In case
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/postscreen pid 16003 exit status 1
Looks like the same problem as Solaris.
Add:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/postscreen pid 16003 exit status 1
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]: warning: process
/usr/libexec/postfix/postscreen
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
fslnx.hq.kwsoft.de[10.1.70.1]
Jan 17 12:05:44 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[16003]: fatal: watchdog timeout
Jan 17 12:05:45 hpux2 postfix/master[15998]:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second whitelisted):
Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
2.8.0-RC1, configuration /etc/postfix
Jan 17 16:28:33 hpux2 postfix/postscreen[28903]: CONNECT from
[10.1.70.1]:48111
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second whitelisted):
Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
2.8.0-RC1, configuration /etc/postfix
Jan 17 16:28:33 hpux2
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second whitelisted):
Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second
whitelisted):
Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2
Wietse Venema:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
With both changes it looks ok now (first blacklisted, second
whitelisted):
Jan 17 16:28:23 hpux2 postfix/master[28899]: daemon started -- version
2.8.0-RC1,
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=70 hiwat=90
hiwat=90 means enter stress mode with 90 or more connections
lowat=70 means leave
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=70 hiwat=90
hiwat=90 means enter stress mode with 90 or
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10 normal=300 lowat=70 hiwat=90
hiwat=90
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
This is what I expect to see (default_process_limit = 100):
Jan 17 11:32:56 tail postfix/postscreen[17566]:
postscreen_command_time_limit: stress=10
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Can you please try the two #define statements at the top of
postscreen.h
#define psc_check_queue_length_hiwat psc_hiwat
#define psc_check_queue_length_lowat psc_lowat
Then recompile.
Sorry, no. Both values stay at 0 after make clean, make tidy,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Well this is the code:
psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
Is the compiler first converting 0.7 to an integer and *then* doing
the
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Well this is the code:
psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
Is the compiler first converting 0.7 to an integer
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Well this is the code:
psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
Is the
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Well this is the code:
psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
psc_hiwat_check_queue_length = .9 *
Wietse Venema:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Well this is the code:
psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 * var_psc_pre_queue_limit;
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Wietse Venema:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Victor Duchovni:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:56:57PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Well this is the code:
psc_lowat_check_queue_length = .7 *
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
If you have time, can you try:
stuff = 0.7 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
stuff = 0.9 * ((double) var_psc_pre_queue_limit);
Thanks,
In case that does not help, declaring the hiwat and lowat variables
as
On 13/01/11 16:00, Wietse Venema wrote:
There have been a few late changes to clean up the postscreen user
interface. I left in some backwards compatibility support for early
adopters. The backwards compatibility will be removed by the time
of the Postfix 2.8 stable release.
Wietse
I get
John Fawcett:
Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
POSTSCREEN_BLACKLIST_NETWORKS
Please follow the instructions!!
Wietse
On 14/01/11 13:02, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* John Fawcett john...@erba.tv:
I get the following warnings with postfix-2.8-20110112 even though I
don't use any more postscreen_whitelist_networks and
postscreen_blacklist_networks in my configuration having replaced them
by the new
* John Fawcett john...@erba.tv:
The code itself seems only to check if the values are set so if you have
removed them completely (rather than setting to blank) you should see
the warning because the default value of postscreen_whitelist_networks
is not blank (unless $mynetworks is blank).
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:59:38 +0100, John Fawcett john...@erba.tv wrote:
I get the following warnings with postfix-2.8-20110112 even though I
don't use any more postscreen_whitelist_networks and
postscreen_blacklist_networks in my configuration having replaced them
by the new
On 14/01/11 13:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
POSTSCREEN_BLACKLIST_NETWORKS
Please follow the instructions!!
Wietse
thanks
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:53:01PM +0100, John Fawcett wrote:
On 14/01/11 13:33, Wietse Venema wrote:
John Fawcett:
Jan 14 10:53:12 rosalia postfix/postscreen[1328]: warning: To stop this
warning, SPECIFY EMPTY VALUES FOR POSTSCREEN_WHITELIST_NETWORKS AND
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
--
Stan
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 01:00:43PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
The above systems reflect the 3 supported flavours
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not tested. Both use a BSD-derived TCP/UP stack,
and will probably work. I may get
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not tested. Both use a BSD-derived
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Stan Hoeppner:
Wietse Venema put forth on 1/13/2011 9:00 AM:
postscreen should be ready for prime time on *BSD, Linux and Solaris
systems (Solaris support was completed last week).
AIX?
AIX and HP-UX are not
Postfix 2.8 is almost ready to become the new stable release. The
only thing in the pipeline is evalating the mysql update, sequence
and cache cleanup support.
There have been a few late changes to clean up the postscreen user
interface. I left in some backwards compatibility support for early
37 matches
Mail list logo
