* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
- Remove non-working addresses promptly from your lists.
This step alon considerably improves reputation AND delivery time.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus
True but there got to be some easy way to export that list, otherwise
I'll have to delete the dead mails from our database manually from time
to time. Any ideas how I can get everything work fluently? I mean, for
example, every several days I get all dead mail addresses from postfix
by maybe a
Thanks for the suggestions. Some comments below.
Regards,
Yaoxing
2010/12/24 9:17, Victor Duchovni Wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 09:11:19AM +0800, ? wrote:
- Make sure your lists really contain users who want to receive the
newsletter, not just users whose email address you
Yaoxing:
True but there got to be some easy way to export that list, otherwise
I'll have to delete the dead mails from our database manually from time
to time. Any ideas how I can get everything work fluently? I mean, for
example, every several days I get all dead mail addresses from
So I must scan the log for the list, isn't it? It works of course but is
there any more specific way to do that? because scanning spends a lot of
time, and you don't know where you stopped last time (or not easy to
find out). especially our front end platform is based on .NET which does
not
Wietse Venema:
Yaoxing:
True but there got to be some easy way to export that list, otherwise
I'll have to delete the dead mails from our database manually from time
to time. Any ideas how I can get everything work fluently? I mean, for
example, every several days I get all dead mail
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:38:19PM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
So I must scan the log for the list, isn't it? It works of course but is
there any more specific way to do that? because scanning spends a lot of
time, and you don't know where you stopped last time (or not easy to find
out).
Yaoxing put forth on 12/24/2010 9:20 AM:
The list comes from our clients' subscriptions. However, we didn't
verify the ownership of the emails before which maybe lead to invalid
email addresses. This is what we can improve in future.
You should have already had a process in place for list
We do have a web portal for users to s*bscribe or uns*bscribe
themselves. And each newsletter contains such a link in case users want
to uns*bscribe.
We already have a very big list which is filled with users who purchased
and s*bscribed in our web site. So there's no need to buy that from a
3rd
Yaoxing put forth on 12/22/2010 9:59 PM:
3. 3.2MB/s disk IO write, 0.01MB/s read.
MB/s throughput isn't usually a factor, but IOPS definitely can be.
What's in the iostat tps column for the device your mail queues reside on?
If your mail queue resides on a single mechanical disk spindle you
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 11:59 +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking for some help of postfix server configuration. hope this is
the right place to ask.
I have a mail server running iRedMail (which is based on postfix). It
sends mails to our subscribers every 4s. I think this doesn't seem to
Hi Stan,
Thank you very much for your adequate explanation. I made some comments
below.
Regards,
Yaoxing
2010/12/23 16:06, Stan Hoeppner:
Yaoxing put forth on 12/22/2010 9:59 PM:
3. 3.2MB/s disk IO write, 0.01MB/s read.
MB/s throughput isn't usually a factor, but IOPS definitely can be.
Hi Ram,
I do have some more spare memory, but I'm afraid it doesn't resolve my
problem.
Let's say, my active queue is filled with 20,000 mails, but mails are
not going out but remains in memory. In this case if I increase active
queue size, I just put more mails in memory, they still don't go
* Yaoxing yaoxing.zh...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
I'm looking for some help of postfix server configuration. hope this is
the right place to ask.
I have a mail server running iRedMail (which is based on postfix). It
sends mails to our subscribers every 4s. I think this doesn't seem to be
a very
It takes too long to show the complete result, but here's the first
screen of
qshape active
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640
1280 1280+
TOTAL 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 1000
gmail.com
Post the output from postconf -n, and a relevant section of the mail logs.
--
J.
4. Less than 20 postfix process (while limitation is explicitly set to 100)
Then, you are sending all mail through the same relay host. Why
are you sending mass mail through a relay host?
Wietse
No special reasons, just trying to find a simple way to program. If this is
the reason why it's so slow, how about using smtp instead? does it resolve
the problem?
On Dec 23, 2010 8:11 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Yaoxing Zhang:
No special reasons, just trying to find a simple way to program. If this is
the reason why it's so slow, how about using smtp instead? does it resolve
the problem?
Please go back to the default settings, and report if the
system is still behaving slower than expected.
It is
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 4:45 AM:
Is this what you're talking about?
Yes.
Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
sda 148.63 27.55 6550.60 523033469 124353201092
sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2524 116
sda2 148.63 27.55 6550.59 523027626 124353101816
sda3 0.00 0.00 0.01 2895 99160
Wietse Venema put forth on 12/23/2010 6:10 AM:
4. Less than 20 postfix process (while limitation is explicitly set to 100)
Then, you are sending all mail through the same relay host. Why
are you sending mass mail through a relay host?
Wietse
It would appear my recommendation may
@Stan
It's OK, you helped a lot already. And your figure is a very good
reference for me. Thank you very much.
@Wietse
I'll try not to use relay host to check the speed.
And sorry if I didn't express myself clearly, I don't mean to complain
anything. Just don't know what's wrong and what to
Yaoxing:
@Stan
It's OK, you helped a lot already. And your figure is a very good
reference for me. Thank you very much.
@Wietse
I'll try not to use relay host to check the speed.
And sorry if I didn't express myself clearly, I don't mean to complain
anything. Just don't know what's
-Original Message-
From: Yaoxing
Sent: 23/12/2010 4:23:51 pm
To: Ramprasad
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: postfix queue tuning
Hi Ram,
I do have some more spare memory, but I'm afraid it doesn't resolve my
problem.
Let's say, my active queue is filled with 20,000 mails
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:03:45PM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
qshape active
T 5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
TOTAL 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1000
gmail.com 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 254
0:54, Ramprasad A Padmanabhan Wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Yaoxing
Sent: 23/12/2010 4:23:51 pm
To: Ramprasad
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: postfix queue tuning
Hi Ram,
I do have some more spare memory, but I'm afraid it doesn't resolve my
problem.
Let's say, my active
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:07:58AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
I think the bandwidths is OK. I have a 100Mb ethernet but until now it's
like15Mb/s according to
iftop -i eth1
For the concurrency issue, what parameter would you suggest to change? I
found some parameters from the documents but do
It's a newsletter group. because it's congesting so I stopped posting
new mails. I think that's why all mails are from 1280+ min ago.
I use
find active/ | wc -l
which gives me 20,002, while
find incoming/ | wc -l
gives 130,000+
and the incoming queue is slowly decreasing.
Regards,
Yaoxing
see comments below.
2010/12/24 1:16, Victor Duchovni Wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:07:58AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Waste of time. Post NON-VERBOSE LOGGING by smtp(8) and qmgr(8).
logfiles=/some/where
egrep 'postfix/(qmgr|smtp)\[' $logfiles | tail -100
Dec 23 11:23:25 e
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:17:48AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
It's a newsletter group. because it's congesting so I stopped posting new
mails. I think that's why all mails are from 1280+ min ago.
No. This is wrong, the incoming queue contains fairly fresh mail.
I use
find active/ | wc -l
which
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:29:00AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Waste of time. Post NON-VERBOSE LOGGING by smtp(8) and qmgr(8).
logfiles=/some/where
egrep 'postfix/(qmgr|smtp)\[' $logfiles | tail -100
Dec 23 11:23:25 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 3C15BFB9143: removed
Dec 23 11:23:25 e
There's nothing in my hold queue. MailScanner do you mean amavis? I
stopped that 10 hours ago. but it doesn't seem to make the situation better.
If I restart postfix, does it make the figure like that? because I
noticed mails in active queues went back to incoming queue while
restarting. So
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:37:48AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
There's nothing in my hold queue. MailScanner do you mean amavis? I stopped
that 10 hours ago. but it doesn't seem to make the situation better.
You can't just stop the content filter, existing messages have the
content_filter transport
Sorry, here's the full list with 100 lines:
Dec 23 11:38:35 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 5E55BFC749F: removed
Dec 23 11:38:35 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 6FC51297C081:
from=n...@e.xxx.com, size=18380, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Dec 23 11:38:38 e postfix/smtp[34263]: 4E4C7297BE10:
to=cryogai...@yahoo.com,
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 11:29 AM:
relay=127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1]:10024
Why are you sending outbound newsletters through a content filter? You
should already know that the content is not spam, and virus free, yes?
And if they are newsletters, why are you sending them every 4 seconds to
the
Then I think I didn't express it clearly. sorry for my bad English.
I have like 400,000 subscribers. every week I send to all of them a news
letter. Every 4 sec, I send out 1 mail to 1 person. I know it's very
slow, but still it congests. That's why I'm wondering what's wrong. also
the same
Yaoxing put forth on 12/23/2010 12:05 PM:
Then I think I didn't express it clearly. sorry for my bad English.
I have like 400,000 subscribers. every week I send to all of them a news
letter. Every 4 sec, I send out 1 mail to 1 person. I know it's very
slow, but still it congests. That's why
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 01:51:13AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
Dec 23 11:38:35 e postfix/qmgr[29972]: 6FC51297C081: from=n...@e.xxx.com,
size=18380, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Some new mail is entering the active queue either from incoming or
deferred queue.
Do you really want the hostname
No this is a misunderstanding. I just masked my company's domain name
with xxx.com due to my policies. I used to mask it with abc.com but it
seems to be a TV chanel. I don't want to confuse people so I changed to
xxx.com, just randomly.
My company is a ecommerce company which send newsletters
Yaoxing:
No this is a misunderstanding. I just masked my company's domain name
with xxx.com due to my policies. I used to mask it with abc.com but it
seems to be a TV chanel. I don't want to confuse people so I changed to
xxx.com, just randomly.
My company is a ecommerce company which send
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 02:53:15AM +0800, Yaoxing wrote:
My company is a ecommerce company which send newsletters to our subscribed
clients weekly. we have nothing to do with spammers.
Sufficiently poor list management and/or privacy policies are
indistinguishable from spam. If you want to
Well I don't want to make this thread look an advertisement. but as long
as you found out already, try Alexa to get more about dealextreme.com
which would prove to you we are not spammers.
Regards,
Yaoxing
2010/12/24 3:05, Wietse Venema Wrote:
Yaoxing:
I was getting suspicious because Yahoo
Although the subscription page is always open to our clients, we don't
send newsletters until recently. That's why I suddenly get so many
subscribers, valid and invalid, all at a time, and get so many troubles
then. Otherwise I won't work until 3:00AM.
Anyway, we're too far away from the
* Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
It takes mail many days to get through the content filter. Fix your content
filter.
Or circumvent it for this type of mail! If your KNOW what you're
sending out, why scan for viruses?
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
I was getting suspicious because Yahoo is permanently refusing your
mail, but this is bad:
% host 195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org
195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org has address 127.0.0.2
BTW your SMTP server banner says
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 12/23/2010 1:45 PM:
* Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
I was getting suspicious because Yahoo is permanently refusing your
mail, but this is bad:
% host 195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org
195.151.228.67.b.barracudacentral.org has address
I cannot really understand based on what do u insist on I'm spamer? Ok
I didn't obfusecate the clients email that's my fault. But why do u
think I post only a few lines at first?
Besides, I did not exit from the thread, removing amavis does resolve
my problem. And it's really too late for me if u
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 09:11:19AM +0800, ? wrote:
I cannot really understand based on what do u insist on I'm spamer? Ok
I didn't obfusecate the clients email that's my fault. But why do u
think I post only a few lines at first?
Besides, I did not exit from the thread, removing
-Original Message-
From: Yaoxing
Sent: 23/12/2010 10:37:58 pm
To: r...@netcore.co.in
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: postfix queue tuning
I think the bandwidths is OK. I have a 100Mb ethernet but until now it's
like15Mb/s according to
iftop -i eth1
Hi all,
I'm looking for some help of postfix server configuration. hope this is
the right place to ask.
I have a mail server running iRedMail (which is based on postfix). It
sends mails to our subscribers every 4s. I think this doesn't seem to be
a very heavy load. however, there're likely 140,000
Am 23.12.2010 04:59, schrieb Yaoxing:
Hi all,
I'm looking for some help of postfix server configuration. hope this is
the right place to ask.
I have a mail server running iRedMail (which is based on postfix). It
sends mails to our subscribers every 4s. I think this doesn't seem to be
a very
51 matches
Mail list logo
