on Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 11:00:34AM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
My idea was to autogenerate the complex regexes using
something like this:
178.183.237.0.dsl.dynamic.eranet.pl
183.246.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz
188.146.109.136.nat.umts.dynamic.eranet.pl
as input.
FWIW,
mouss put forth on 3/8/2011 5:03 PM:
[WARNING: Steven CC'd]
things. so I'd say, do not consider performances as a primary target. go
for catching spammers first. only tune after you get the irght rules,
and only if needed (I personally don't tune anything here. I'm happy to
focus on
Steve put forth on 3/8/2011 5:12 PM:
Maybe using if/endif conditions like Stan Hoeppner has done on his pcre map
could speedup things even more? - http://www.hardwarefreak.com/fqrdns.pcre
You're giving me too much credit. ;) Again, I'm not the original author
of that table. That person
mouss put forth on 3/7/2011 5:45 PM:
Le 07/03/2011 15:13, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Ok, so if I'm doing what I've heard called a fully qualified regular
expression, WRT FQrDNS matching, should I use the anchors or not?
postmap -q says these all work (the actuals with action and text that is).
Stan Hoeppner:
So, the question is, which form of expression processes the does not
match case faster? The fully qualified expression, or the simple
expression? Noel mentioned that the fully qualified expressions will
tend to process faster. Is this true? Is it true for both the
matches
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/8/2011 10:39 AM:
Stan Hoeppner:
So, the question is, which form of expression processes the does not
match case faster? The fully qualified expression, or the simple
expression? Noel mentioned that the fully qualified expressions will
tend to process faster. Is
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 02:29:23PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
So this would mean the simpler expressions would be faster? That makes
me wonder why Enemies List[1] uses complex expressions, each one
precisely matching a specific rDNS pattern,
To avoid false positives by matching in the wrong
Wietse Venema wrote:
If you must match a very large numbers of patterns, you need an
implementation that transforms N patterns into one deterministic
automaton. This can match 1 pattern in the same time as N patterns.
Once the automaton is built (which takes some time) it is blindingly
fast.
[WARNING: Steven CC'd]
Le 08/03/2011 21:29, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/8/2011 10:39 AM:
Stan Hoeppner:
So, the question is, which form of expression processes the does not
match case faster? The fully qualified expression, or the simple
expression? Noel mentioned
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:49:21 +1100
Von: Erik de Castro Lopo mle+to...@mega-nerd.com
An: postfix-users@postfix.org
Betreff: Re: regular expressions was: Kernel Oops
Wietse Venema wrote:
If you must match a very large numbers of patterns, you need
mouss:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
Le 08/03/2011 23:49, Erik de Castro Lopo a ?crit :
Wietse Venema wrote:
If you must match a very large numbers of patterns, you need an
implementation that transforms N patterns into one deterministic
automaton. This can match 1
Noel Jones wrote:
The pattern length limit is controlled by the pcre library
you're using. I think most implementations limit single
expressions to 64k characters.
Obviously something that needs testing.
It's unclear to me if a single huge complex expression will
evaluate faster that
on Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:03:27AM +0100, mouss wrote:
[WARNING: Steven CC'd]
:-)
Le 08/03/2011 21:29, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
That makes me wonder why Enemies List[1] uses complex expressions,
each one precisely matching a specific rDNS pattern, given EL
matches 65k+ patterns total.
On 3/8/2011 6:00 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Noel Jones wrote:
The pattern length limit is controlled by the pcre library
you're using. I think most implementations limit single
expressions to 64k characters.
Obviously something that needs testing.
Many years ago I worked on a system
Noel Jones wrote:
Many years ago I worked on a system with a 32k limit on pcre
expressions. Ever since then, everything I've checked has
been 64k, and then I gave up checking. I expect any
non-ancient system will support 64k, and some maybe even more.
(To clarify for others following
mouss put forth on 3/6/2011 7:03 PM:
/^.*foo/
means it starts with something followed by foo. and this is the same
thing as it contains foo, which is represented by
/foo/
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
$/. Why did Steven teach me to do this if it's not
On 2011-03-07 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
mouss put forth on 3/6/2011 7:03 PM:
/^.*foo/
means it starts with something followed by foo. and this is the same
thing as it contains foo, which is represented by
/foo/
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them
with $/. Why did
On 3/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
$/. Why did Steven teach me to do this if it's not necessary?
That's good advice when you're actually matching something.
The special case of .* means, as you know, anything or
Noel Jones put forth on 3/7/2011 7:00 AM:
On 3/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
$/. Why did Steven teach me to do this if it's not necessary?
That's good advice when you're actually matching something.
Ok, so if I'm
On 3/7/2011 8:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 3/7/2011 7:00 AM:
On 3/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
$/. Why did Steven teach me to do this if it's not necessary?
That's good advice when you're
Noel Jones put forth on 3/7/2011 9:49 AM:
On 3/7/2011 8:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Noel Jones put forth on 3/7/2011 7:00 AM:
On 3/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
$/. Why did Steven teach me to do this if it's not
Le 07/03/2011 11:47, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
mouss put forth on 3/6/2011 7:03 PM:
/^.*foo/
means it starts with something followed by foo. and this is the same
thing as it contains foo, which is represented by
/foo/
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
Le 07/03/2011 11:47, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
mouss put forth on 3/6/2011 7:03 PM:
/^.*foo/
means it starts with something followed by foo. and this is the same
thing as it contains foo, which is represented by
/foo/
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
Le 07/03/2011 15:13, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Noel Jones put forth on 3/7/2011 7:00 AM:
On 3/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I was taught to always start my expressions with /^ and end them with
$/. Why did Steven teach me to do this if it's not necessary?
That's good advice when
it is necessary to consider the option
parent_domain_matches_subdomains =
Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 00:45 +0100, mouss a écrit :
Le 07/03/2011 15:13, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Noel Jones put forth on 3/7/2011 7:00 AM:
On 3/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I was taught to always start my
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:43:11PM +0300, Denis Shulyaka wrote:
Mar 4 14:46:29 shulyaka kern.alert kernel: CPU 0 Unable to handle
kernel paging request at virtual address 0050, epc == 800fbdb4, ra
== 800fbdf8
This kernel is broken bejond repair. Get a fixed one.
Mar 4 14:46:29 shulyaka
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 06:24:57PM +0300, Denis Shulyaka wrote:
If I pass change `fsspace(., fsbuf);' to `fsspace(/, fsbuf);' it
works, no oopses, and the messages are received without problems. I
will make some stress tests later.
So the remaining question is what . in smtpd context mean?
Hi Viktor,
You are right, for some reason my system has some troubles with
fsspace(/var/spool/postfix, fsbuf). Possibly, Bastian is right
about my kernel. But I just don't how to fix it.
Any way, Postfix code is OK, and the workaround with
`fsspace(/overlay, fsbuf)` satisfies me so far.
Best
Hi Viktor,
I have tried both statfs() and statvfs() and it shows the similar behaivour.
2011/3/6 Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com:
The fsspace function is a Postfix utility function, the underlying
system interface is either statfs() or statvfs(). You should find
out which is
Victor Duchovni:
The fsspace function is a Postfix utility function, the underlying
system interface is either statfs() or statvfs(). You should find
out which is used on your system and test that...
Denis Shulyaka:
I have tried both statfs() and statvfs() and it shows the similar
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/6/2011 3:29 PM:
Postfix uses statfs/statvfs as part of a safety net. If you delete
the call, then Postfix would waste more bandwidth receiving mail
that it can't store.
However, if statfs/statvfs are broken, then there are likely to be
more problems.
I
Wietse:
However, if statfs/statvfs are broken, then there are likely to be
more problems.
I would recommend against using the file system for
the email queue.
Instead, use a better file system.
Wietse
Le 05/03/2011 00:18, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 3/4/2011 3:33 PM:
BTW, is there any how-to for getting the least possible memory
footprint for Postfix.
- don't use regex/pcre maps
This isn't necessarily true, is it? In some cases I would think it's
.
In the suggested System.map file the closest entry is 'alloc_page_buffers'.
The default_process_limit, qmgr_message_active_limit and
qmgr_message_recipient_limit tweaks have no effect at all.
Any thoughts why statfs() may trigger a kernel oops?
Best regards,
Denis Shulyaka
2011/3/4 Wietse
free space on current
filesystem for a queue.
In the suggested System.map file the closest entry is 'alloc_page_buffers'.
The default_process_limit, qmgr_message_active_limit and
qmgr_message_recipient_limit tweaks have no effect at all.
Any thoughts why statfs() may trigger a kernel oops
mouss put forth on 3/5/2011 7:20 AM:
Le 05/03/2011 00:18, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
/^.*\.(dyn|dhcp)\.embarqhsd\.net$/ REJECT Please use ISP relay
you can simplify that:
/\.(dyn|dhcp)\.embarqhsd\.net$/ REJECT Please use ISP relay
more generally /^.* is never needed.
Does this expression
On 3/5/2011 9:32 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
mouss put forth on 3/5/2011 7:20 AM:
Le 05/03/2011 00:18, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
/^.*\.(dyn|dhcp)\.embarqhsd\.net$/ REJECT Please use ISP relay
you can simplify that:
/\.(dyn|dhcp)\.embarqhsd\.net$/ REJECT Please use ISP relay
more generally
4 14:46:29 shulyaka mail.warn postfix/master[16781]: warning:
/usr/libexec/postfix/smtpd: bad command startup -- throttling
Mar 4 14:46:29 shulyaka kern.warn kernel: Oops[#23]:
Mar 4 14:46:29 shulyaka kern.warn kernel: Cpu 0
Mar 4 14:46:29 shulyaka kern.warn kernel: $ 0 : 0001
* Denis Shulyaka shuly...@gmail.com:
Hi list!
I'm trying to run postfix on my OpenWrt system. I have successfully
compiled it and now I can send mails, but when I try to receive a
mail, smtpd crashes and I can see this in the system log:
Mar 4 14:46:29 shulyaka mail.info
What hardware are running openwrt on?
* john j...@klam.ca:
What hardware are running openwrt on?
Sounds like a MIPS based OpenWRT system, e.g. a WRT54g (am I correct?)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
On 04/03/2011 8:58 AM, Denis Shulyaka wrote:
Hi John,
It's D-Link DIR-825 router, CPU Atheros AR7161@680MHz (mips)
2011/3/4 johnj...@klam.ca:
What hardware are running openwrt on?
I think that you are being a little ambitious, that box has 8M flash and
64M RAM.
All that is necessary for
I think you should listen to the advise you were given on the OpenWRT
developers forum by Philip.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing. (Edmund Burke)
Hi Ralf,
Thanks for the response.
I think 13 Mb should be well enough for receiving a message, and I
also expect some different error message if it is a memory allocation
problem.
2011/3/4 Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de:
Sounds like you run out of memory.
But let's see what the
Denis Shulyaka:
Hi Ralf,
Thanks for the response.
I think 13 Mb should be well enough for receiving a message, and I
also expect some different error message if it is a memory allocation
problem.
Postfix asks the kernel for memory. If the kernel oopses and crashes
Postfix, then that can't
Hi Wietse,
How much memory does smtpd need to receive a message, approximately?
Can I tweak this value somehow?
2011/3/4 Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Denis Shulyaka:
Hi Ralf,
Thanks for the response.
I think 13 Mb should be well enough for receiving a message, and I
also expect
Hi John,
I don't agree with Philip, but the only way to prove my point is to
make it running.
I will need to see it myself to believe that 64M RAM + swap is not enough.
2011/3/4 john j...@klam.ca:
I think you should listen to the advise you were given on the OpenWRT
developers forum by Philip.
On 3/4/2011 9:13 AM, Denis Shulyaka wrote:
Hi John,
I don't agree with Philip, but the only way to prove my point is to
make it running.
I will need to see it myself to believe that 64M RAM + swap is not enough.
Things to try:
Don't use any lookup tables.
comment out all unused entries in
Wietse:
Postfix asks the kernel for memory. If the kernel oopses and crashes
Postfix, then that can't be fixed by changing Postfix.
Denis Shulyaka:
How much memory does smtpd need to receive a message, approximately?
Can I tweak this value somehow?
First, you can't run Postfix on a kernel
Hi Noel, Wietse,
Thanks! I will try to do this and will update you with the result.
Best regards,
Denis Shulyaka
Wietse Venema:
The biggest tweak is reducing default_process_limit by a factor 10
or more. Other tweaks are reducing qmgr_message_active_limit and
qmgr_message_recipient_limit by a factor 10 or more.
And don't use Berkeley DB. Use CDB instead.
Wietse
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Denis Shulyaka shuly...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! I will try to do this and will update you with the result.
When I read Denis' first post I thought WHAT? Postfix on a WRT54G? He's crazy!
But now I'm rooting for you, Denis! I hope you get it working! :)
SteveJ
Ralf Hildebrandt put forth on 3/4/2011 6:53 AM:
* Denis Shulyaka shuly...@gmail.com:
Hi list!
I'm trying to run postfix on my OpenWrt system. I have successfully
compiled it and now I can send mails, but when I try to receive a
mail, smtpd crashes and I can see this in the system log:
Mar
Steve Jenkins:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Denis Shulyaka shuly...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! I will try to do this and will update you with the result.
When I read Denis' first post I thought WHAT? Postfix on a WRT54G? He's
crazy!
But now I'm rooting for you, Denis! I hope you get it
On 3/4/2011 2:01 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Steve Jenkins:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Denis Shulyakashuly...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! I will try to do this and will update you with the result.
When I read Denis' first post I thought WHAT? Postfix on a WRT54G? He's crazy!
But now I'm
Hi Daniel,
Actually it's D-Link DIR 825 with attached USB hard drive, and it's
white and stylish!
2011/3/4 Daniel Bromberg dan...@basezen.com:
On 3/4/2011 2:01 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Steve Jenkins:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Denis Shulyakashuly...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks! I will
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Steve Jenkins:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Denis Shulyaka shuly...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! I will try to do this and will update you with the result.
When I read Denis' first post I thought WHAT? Postfix on a WRT54G?
He's crazy!
But now
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 10:33:30PM +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote:
BTW, is there any how-to for getting the least possible memory footprint
for Postfix. As learned some points are
- reduce either the global default process limit or the relevant process
limits in master.cf
- use a small
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 3/4/2011 3:33 PM:
Zitat von Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org:
Postfix has been running since late 1998 on a 64MB box, 24/7. I
replaced the few parts that break, and blow out the dust once a
year or so. Good hardware does not die.
Wietse
You must
lst_ho...@kwsoft.de put forth on 3/4/2011 3:33 PM:
BTW, is there any how-to for getting the least possible memory
footprint for Postfix.
- don't use regex/pcre maps
This isn't necessarily true, is it? In some cases I would think it's
dramatically reversed in favor of PCRE tables (unless the
60 matches
Mail list logo
