Re: [toaster] Forwards handling

2007-12-21 Thread Shane Chrisp
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 10:42 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 As i understand from your recommendation is that you delete or do not
 deliver to a mailbox all messages that are considered as spam ?

I never delete mail, its always bounced during the smtp conversation so
that the sender gets notified in case of a false positive or it is
accepted. I dont give the clients the option to play with the spam
settings in SA either and I get very few false positives.

 I still deliver spam messages but i deliver them to the Spam folder
 using procmail. If a user sets it's mailbox to forward all messages to
 another external mailbox i think that the procmail is never run and if it
 is run the message still gets forwarded.
 
 Again, if i'm not mistaking you recommendation will not help me a great deal.

If this is how you want to run your systems then no my option is not
going to help you out. However I would recommend that if your going have
customers setting up forwards, you should consider rejecting the spam at
smtp conversation time instead. But that is of course your own choice.

I cant think of any way of having the email forwarded and yet not
forwarding on the spam.

Shane

 If you care to explain in more detail what is the exact behavior and what
 is going on ?
 
  Simply run good spamassassin filtering on your server and you wont
  forward spam on. If your not already, consider also using rules from
  http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm in your SA setup and use
  RulesDuJour to keep them up to date.
 
  Shane
 
 
  On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 11:30 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hello list !
 
  Is there a way i can control forwarder addresses that the users set ?
 
  Here is the encountered scenario:
 
  Users set a forward for the mailbox on my server to a remote yahoo
  address. This causes for all spam that they receive to be also sent to
  the
  yahoo servers which, in turn, will start to consider my server as a
  spamming one and keep deferring messages for large periods of times.
  This
  behavior disturbs other user's communications when yahoo addresses are
  involved since the legitimate messages are deferred for large periods of
  time also.
 
  My question is, if a limit on the forwarded e-mail addresses can be set
  to
  only local addresses. This is a preferred behavior unlike disabling
  forwards altogether.
 
  Thank you in advance for your answers and clarifications in case i mis
  understood the situation encountered.
 
 
 
 
 



Re: [toaster] OT - Preferred File Systems

2007-12-21 Thread Matthew E. Porter

Jeff:
  xfs is an excellent choice but it is imperative to understand the  
tradeoffs.  Data can easily corrupt in xfs if the SATA RAID not  
cleanly unmounted and powered down correctly.  Another minor problem  
is the limited support by commercial distribution vendors.


  For reference, we were using xfs on four 16TB units and never ran  
into problems.  This infrastructure was used for our D2D backup system.



Cheers,
  Matthew
---
Matthew E. Porter
Contegix
Beyond Managed Hosting(r) for Your Enterprise



On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Jeff Koch wrote:




We're setting up a new mailserver with a Gigabyte i-ram drive to  
handle the qmail queue, and qmail logs. The i-ram drive uses  
standard DDR modules, has a battery backup and is lightning fast -  
much faster than solid state drives. We'll use SATA RAID for the  
maildirs and remainder of the server.


I'd like to get some input on the best filesystem for the i-ram  
drive. EXT3 is out because writes are slowed to the speed of a hard  
drive. I'm leaning towards reiserfs or xfs. However, I've read  
(wikipedia) that reiserfs is easily corrupted. xfs seems the best.


Anyone have any comments of suggestions.




Best Regards,

Jeff Koch, Intersessions




Re: [toaster] OT - Preferred File Systems

2007-12-21 Thread Alessio Cecchi
Il Friday 21 December 2007 17:24:18 Jeff Koch ha scritto:
 Anyone have any comments of suggestions.

Follow this thread on CentOS ML, very interesting:

http://www.mail-archive.com/centos%40centos.org/msg07283.html

And see this interesting test:

http://www.htiweb.inf.br/benchmark/fsbench.htm

Ciao
-- 
Alessio Cecchi is:
@ ILS - http://www.linux.it/~alessice/
Assistenza Sistemi GNU/Linux - http://www.cecchi.biz/
@ PLUG - Presidente, http://www.prato.linux.it