The issue where timed-out messages are delivered anyway will be fixed in 
version 4.0.0.

I don't see how ClamAV could be causing Eric's timeouts but again, since 
I don't (yet) understand what's happening, it's worth a shot.  Keeping 
ClamAV up to date is always a good idea, whether any problems are 
occurring or not.  Generally speaking, a slow/unresponsive qmail (or 
other child process) can cause an idle timeout in spamdyke 3.1.7 -- I've 
fixed this in the next version.

-- Sam Clippinger

Bruce Schreiber wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I had the exact same symptom with multiple users.  The problem turned 
> out to be in ClamAV.  There is a DOS exploit in ClamAV that is solved 
> with an upgrade to 0.91 or later.  (see 
> http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/35367)   Upgrading ClamAV solved the 
> problem for the most part.
>
> I agree that the symptom is disturbing.  If the mail client is being 
> sent a message indicating that the message failed, then it should not 
> be sent by Qmail.  I believe this is a Spamdyke bug.  Spamdyke is 
> terminating the client session, but is failing to stop Qmail from 
> sending the email.  Outlook exacerbates this problem by automatically 
> retrying the failed message, without notifying the user.  I had one 
> customer complain that a message was sent 170 times.  Customers eyes 
> glaze over when you try to explain why it happened.
>
> Sam, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> Michael Colvin wrote:
>> Doing this, kind of negates the need for doing it in SpamDyke, except 
>> for maybe a "Backup" in case Qmail doesn't for some reason.
>>  
>> I think the problem is, some people don't have a timeoutsmtpd file.  
>> I had  a "Stock" Qmailrocks install that did not have it, and 
>> apparently, the "Default" value used by Qmail if that file is missing 
>> is 1200 seconds (20 minutes), which of course is kind of ridiculous.  
>> So, with even a modest value in SpamDyke of 300 
>> seconds, SpamDyke would occassionally timeout a connection, and in 
>> some cases, I think because of the way SpamDyke disconnected the 
>> session, the sending server didn't realize the message had been 
>> sent.  I belive it is discusses in this thread:
>>  
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00746.html
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> **Michael J. Colvin**
>>
>> **NorCal Internet Services**
>>
>> **//www.norcalisp.com// <http://www.norcalisp.com/>**
>>
>>  
>>
>> <http://www.norcalisp.com/>
>>
>>  
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>     [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Paulo
>>     Henrique
>>     *Sent:* Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:18 PM
>>     *To:* spamdyke users
>>     *Subject:* Re: [spamdyke-users] Timeout problem
>>
>>     I had a problem like this and decided putting the timeout from
>>     qmail less than the timeout from spamdyke, see:
>>
>>     cat /var/qmail/control/timeoutsmtpd
>>     240
>>     grep idle-timeout-secs /var/qmail/control/spamdyke/spamdyke.conf
>>     idle-timeout-secs = 300
>>
>>
>>
>>     After that never had problem with the repetition of messages.
>>
>>     2008/4/22 Eric Shubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
>>
>>         I had a problem receiving a particular email message. It
>>         would always send
>>         the same amount of data, then timeout. The same amount of
>>         data was
>>         sent/received with timeouts of 60 and 180 seconds.
>>
>>         I logged the message (great little feature of spamdyke btw),
>>         and the end
>>         part of the message log always shows:
>>         <HR align="left" SIZE=1 color=black>
>>         <div align="left"><font face="arial"
>>         size="1">14072172</font></div></td></tr></TBODY></TABLE>
>>         </BODY></HTML>
>>
>>         FF> 04/22/2008 17:11:13
>>         .
>>         QUIT
>>
>>         <FF  04/22/2008 17:11:13
>>         421 Timeout. Talk faster next time.
>>
>>         <XX  04/22/2008 17:11:33
>>         250 ok 1208909493 qp 11949
>>         221 doris.shubes.net <http://doris.shubes.net> - Welcome to
>>         Qmail Toaster Ver. 1.3 SMTP Server
>>
>>         04/22/2008 17:11:33 CLOSED
>>
>>
>>         Here's the smtp log for the successful receipt (with no
>>         spamdyke):
>>         04-22 17:21:13 tcpserver: pid 12162 from 208.46.47.130
>>         <http://208.46.47.130>
>>         04-22 17:21:13 tcpserver: ok 12162 doris:192.168.71.11:25
>>         <http://192.168.71.11:25> :208.46.47.130::51303
>>         04-22 17:21:13 CHKUSER accepted sender: from
>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED]::> remote
>>         <rapport.mysurvey.com:unknown:208.46.47.130
>>         <http://208.46.47.130>> rcpt <> : sender accepted
>>         04-22 17:21:13 CHKUSER accepted rcpt: from
>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED]::> remote
>>         <rapport.mysurvey.com:unknown:208.46.47.130
>>         <http://208.46.47.130>> rcpt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>         <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> :
>>         found existing recipient
>>         04-22 17:21:34 simscan:[12162]:CLEAN
>>         (-6.20/99.00):20.2626s:April Edition of
>>         MySurvey.com Opinion
>>         Matters:208.46.47.130:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>         <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>         04-22 17:21:34 tcpserver: end 12162 status 0
>>
>>
>>         After receiving the entire message, I see this portion that
>>         was received
>>         after the part logged by spamdyke:
>>         <IMG
>>         
>> SRC="https://www.mysurvey.com/gems/gems_open_tracking.cfm?indid=14072172&cmpid=1105&r=1720290&rundate=22-APR-2008+11%3a52%3a55&z=67129618CF0844A786F0E0A6C20C49CD
>>         
>> <https://www.mysurvey.com/gems/gems_open_tracking.cfm?indid=14072172&cmpid=1105&r=1720290&rundate=22-APR-2008+11%3a52%3a55&z=67129618CF0844A786F0E0A6C20C49CD>"border="0"
>>         width="1" height="1">
>>
>>         ------=_Layout_Part_DC7E1BB5_1105_4DB3_BAE3_2A6208EB099A--
>>
>>
>>         Any idea why this would timeout (consistently, like
>>         clockwork) with
>>         spamdyke, but not without it? This message timed out all day
>>         long with
>>         spamdyke, but was received successfully on the first attempt
>>         without
>>         spamdyke. Did spamdyke somehow choke on the last bit?
>>
>>         FWIW, it appears that the entire email was a bit hosed, as
>>         the html did not
>>         render properly in the client view (mac mail) once the entire
>>         message was
>>         received.
>>
>>         --
>>         -Eric 'shubes'
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         spamdyke-users mailing list
>>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>         http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Paulo Henrique Fonseca
>>     [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spamdyke-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>   
> ___
>
> .mdEmail and .mdSecureIM allow tramsmission of PHI in compliance with HIPAA.
> Each is included when you register a .md Domain Name.
> http://www.max.md/register.php?affid=footer1
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>   
_______________________________________________
spamdyke-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Reply via email to