magic accretion of list-mail via blue-chip.com
Hi, every time someone Cc´s list-mail to me, I´d expect two copies arriving here. But with debian-isp there are always /three/ of them, the first one comes here on the direct route, the next two through murphy.debian.org. Examining headers: Received: from murphy.debian.org(216.234.231.6) via SMTP by fw.xsoft.at, id smtpdEflgIL; Fri Aug 10 18:02:51 2001 Received: (qmail 18254 invoked by uid 38); 10 Aug 2001 16:02:33 - X-envelope-sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18218 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 16:02:32 - Received: from unknown (HELO happylinuxbox.netnumina.com) (130.105.10.10) by murphy.debian.org with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 16:02:32 - Received: (qmail 22533 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 16:01:57 - Received: from unknown (HELO whirlycott.com) (130.105.10.75) by happylinuxbox.netnumina.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 16:01:57 - Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from UNKNOWN(195.188.16.215), claiming to be "SERVER.blue-chip.com" via ESMTP by fw.xsoft.at, id smtpdIEbsTi; Fri Aug 10 18:17:21 2001 Received: from SERVER.blue-chip.com ([195.188.16.215]) by SERVER.blue-chip.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2096); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:15:42 +0100 Received: by SERVER.blue-chip.com (Microsoft Connector for POP3 Mailboxes 5.00.2195) with SMTP (Global POP3 Download) id [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:15:39 +0100 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [216.234.231.6]) by flipper.blue-chip.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with SMTP id RAA16244 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:11:01 +0100 Resent-date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:11:01 +0100 (18:11 CEST) Received: (qmail 18254 invoked by uid 38); 10 Aug 2001 16:02:33 - X-envelope-sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 18218 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 16:02:32 - Received: from unknown (HELO happylinuxbox.netnumina.com) (130.105.10.10) by murphy.debian.org with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 16:02:32 - Received: (qmail 22533 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 16:01:57 - Received: from unknown (HELO whirlycott.com) (130.105.10.75) by happylinuxbox.netnumina.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 16:01:57 - Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blue-chip.com, you have a problem. Your crapware is broken. Please - fix it, or - simply turn the fscking thing off. Why do I Cc this to the list? - I strongly suspect postmaster@ will just bounce - Other people on the list will have the same problem Ah, yes, another thing. Please don´t Cc me on list-mail, I read all the lists/newsgroups/whatnot I post to. thankyouverymuch, Robert Waldner -- / Ing. Robert Waldner | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ \ Xsoft GmbH | T: +43 1 796 36 36 692 / PGP signature
Re: Clustering mail servers - Cyrus or Courier ?
On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Russell Coker wrote: > On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 16:10, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > I'm looking for good solution for big, scalabale mailserver installation, > > for 500,000 accounts and more... > > > > As for now I think: > > - sharng NFS-mounted mail storage is not so good idea. > > Why not? If you use Maildir storage then it's NFS safe. If you use a NetAPP > Filer, a VA NAS device (or any machine running 2.2.x kernel with LVM, Ext3, > and appropriate NFS kernel-server patches as the VA NAS devices did), or some > similarly powerful NFS server then performance should be more than adequate. Hmmm, I'm really afraid about NFS, I've heared that Linux NFS implementation is broken, many times. Can anyone explain it a bit ? > For Ext3 you need to keep the number of entries in a directory down to <1000 > for best performance, but most users don't have that many messages in their > mail folder. So you just have to do suitable directory hashing to make sure > you don't have too many users in a directory (all mail storage software has > support for this). Yeah, I do such hushing on every bigger mailserver, it's a common solution. Currently I'm testing qmail-ldap + maildrop + Courier-IMAP. Works well, but it's not HA solution :| > Then you can have multiple mail servers running at the same time for > increased reliability. This is much better than the Perdition approach of > increasing the number of points of failure. Having an NFS file server as a > single point of failure is as good as it gets, making an NFS file server > reliable is much easier than making a mail server reliable... Running multiple mail servers over NFS will actually makie it HA-like system. But is it good solution for high load ? Using perdition-like solution to split mailspool between separate NFS servers, and using multiple mailservers for each NFS backend would probably build good scalable solution. -=Czaj-nick=- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache/PHP
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Make sure you have /usr/lib/apache/1.3/libphp4.so. Look for the share dobject and place it in this directory. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said thusly on [13/08/01 at 08:44]: > I'm slowly switching over my Roxen sites to Apache. I'm trying to get > the PHP module to work, but when I add it, apache won't start. The > configtest shows: > > users# apachectl configtest > Syntax error on line 246 of /etc/apache/httpd.conf: > Cannot load /usr/lib/apache/1.3/libphp4.so into server: /usr/lib/libpcre.so.3: >undefined symbol: atexit > > Now, on other servers I admin, this same config works fine. What stupid > thing did I forget? > > Thanks, > Tim > > -- >>< >>> Tim Sailer (at home) >< Coastal Internet, Inc. << >>> Network and Systems Operations >< PO Box 671 << >>> http://www.buoy.com >< Ridge, NY 11961 << >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] >< (631) 924-3728 << >>< > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people doesn't add up to a hill of beans in this crazy world." (Humphrey Bogart) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
