Re: [qmailtoaster] slowness in sending large # of messages:MORE INFO

2006-10-10 Thread Michael Handiboe
Hopefully this will get the gears cranking for someone: 'Been reading the mailing list (don't normally have time for that) I've got CentOS 4.3 I built QT on it 16 June 06 and did a yum update then, per instructions on the QT webpage. No further changes to it. QT packages are same as June

Re: [qmailtoaster] slowness in sending large # of messages:MORE INFO

2006-10-10 Thread Michael Handiboe
Michael Handiboe wrote: Hopefully this will get the gears cranking for someone: and I blanked out the /var/qmail/control/blacklists file on Friday, due to spamhaus.org going away. Does *something* have to be in there? -

Re: [qmailtoaster] slowness in sending large # of messages:MORE INFO

2006-10-10 Thread Jake Vickers
Michael Handiboe wrote: Hopefully this will get the gears cranking for someone: 'Been reading the mailing list (don't normally have time for that) I've got CentOS 4.3 I built QT on it 16 June 06 and did a yum update then, per instructions on the QT webpage. No further changes to it. QT

Re: [qmailtoaster] slowness in sending large # of messages:MORE INFO

2006-10-10 Thread Michael Handiboe
Jake Vickers wrote: If he's coming from an outside IP, it sounds like maybe you're hitting the chkuser limits defined in your /etc/tcprules.d/tcp.smtp file. Which if I remember right off the top of my head allow up to 50 recipients at a time. If this is the case, you may want to add a

Re: [qmailtoaster] slowness in sending large # of messages:MORE INFO

2006-10-10 Thread Michael Handiboe
Michael Handiboe wrote: Jake Vickers wrote: recipients at a time. If this is the case, you may want to add a rule at the top for his IP address to not use the chkuser checks, just like the 127 entry does. Wow, lotsa CHKUSER stuff in the web-archives... And I think I've solved it.

Re: [qmailtoaster] slowness in sending large # of messages:MORE INFO

2006-10-10 Thread Jake Vickers
Michael Handiboe wrote: Michael Handiboe wrote: Jake Vickers wrote: recipients at a time. If this is the case, you may want to add a rule at the top for his IP address to not use the chkuser checks, just like the 127 entry does. Wow, lotsa CHKUSER stuff in the web-archives... And I