On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Victor Duchovni <victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 06:51:20AM -0700, Curtis wrote: > >> So, on a box that I know has nothing else feeding into the maildrop >> queue, it would be safe to skip the step of dropping it in the idle >> queue of a second instance (on the same filesystem) and running >> "postsuper -s" to get a properly named queue file? I would, of >> course, use a queue file name that would never be used by postfix. > > The queue file should be created mode 0600, owner $mail_owner, and > changed to 0700 once the contents are fully copied into the file. > The file-name must be alphanumeric. Postfix queue-ids only use [0-9A-F], > so in the maildrop directory you can avoid collisions by prefixing the > original filename with "X". > It would appear that we're seeing a side effect of dropping files into the maildrop queue like this. if there are messages in the maildrop directory when a "postfix reload" is run, we're seeing duplicate messages. I think it's because the message is already picked up by postfix, but that there's a bit of a delay before it removes the file from maildrop. and then postfix renames the file during the reload: May 21 16:20:26 xxxx postfix/postsuper[20853]: Renamed to match inode number: 2 messages May 21 16:20:26 xxxx postfix/postsuper[20853]: warning: QUEUE FILE NAMES WERE CHANGED TO MATCH INODE NUMBERS May 21 16:20:26 xxxx postfix/qmgr[20854]: 5D8BF12137FC: from=< xxxx @ xxxx.com>, size=1325, nrcpt=1 (queue active) May 21 16:20:26 xxxx postfix/pickup[20230]: warning: remove maildrop/AB29B12137FCx2730: No such file or directory .then the message gets sent a second time (or at least I'm guessing that's how the duplicate happens). I guess the answer is to either run that second instance of postfix that doesn't get hit with a "reload" very often or. would running "postsuper -s" solve it? Curtis > -- > Viktor.
