On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:38:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > However, if you want the most blazingly fast mailer, use zmailer. It's
> > > just not a general purpose MTA
> > true.
>
> For our mailman server, all mail goes to our zmailer (dedicated) machine, and
> BOY does that mail jus
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 09:43:39AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:35:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I don't have the results after all this time. Exim beat postfix in raw
> > speed of moving mail in and/or out by over 15%.
>
> that must be specific to your part
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:38:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > However, if you want the most blazingly fast mailer, use zmailer. It's
> > > just not a general purpose MTA
> > true.
>
> For our mailman server, all mail goes to our zmailer (dedicated) machine, and
> BOY does that mail jus
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 09:43:39AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:35:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I don't have the results after all this time. Exim beat postfix in raw
> > speed of moving mail in and/or out by over 15%.
>
> that must be specific to your part
* eManager Notification **
Recipient, Content filter has detected a message potentially containing a
Melissa virus.
Destination mailbox(es): " debian-isp@lists.debian.org"
*** End of message ***
Received: from 192.168.85.10 by TREND.i
Kóczán Péter wrote:
I have a problem regarding to amavis. I've configured it for courier and the
config file is ok, however amavis does not run, when i execute amavis, it
gives the following error:
AMAVIS: Couldn't init AMAVIS::MTA::Courier: Invalid argument at
/usr/share/perl/AMAVIS.pm line 235,
This is an automated message from Pathway Communications' E-mail Virus
Scanning Service which scans all inbound e-mail addressed to Pathway clients
for viruses.
Our virus scanning system has detected that you may have sent to Pathway
client: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a message infected with the following
* eManager Notification **
Recipient, Content filter has detected a message potentially containing a Melissa
virus.
Destination mailbox(es): " [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
*** End of message ***
Received: from 192.168.85.10 by TREND.intra.capit
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:35:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't have the results after all this time. Exim beat postfix in raw
> speed of moving mail in and/or out by over 15%.
that must be specific to your particular hardware and/or usage, because it's
contrary to every other postfi
Kóczán Péter wrote:
I have a problem regarding to amavis. I've configured it for courier and the
config file is ok, however amavis does not run, when i execute amavis, it
gives the following error:
AMAVIS: Couldn't init AMAVIS::MTA::Courier: Invalid argument at
/usr/share/perl/AMAVIS.pm line 235,
This is an automated message from Pathway Communications' E-mail Virus
Scanning Service which scans all inbound e-mail addressed to Pathway clients
for viruses.
Our virus scanning system has detected that you may have sent to Pathway
client: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a message infected with the following
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:14:43PM -0800, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> Okay since I had a 3-year-old Exim configuration file, I decided to
> take a brand-new one and then use "diff" to find what I needed to move over.
>
> Hopefully now, it is rejecting bad recipients at SMTP time. However,
> it's a
As I'm sure most people in here are, we're getting lots of bounces of worm
messages our users didn't send. Can't be helped, really, but unfortunately,
we've been getting quite a few from people using qmail (misconfigured, i assume)
which bounces the entire message back, and doesn't do any sort of
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:35:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't have the results after all this time. Exim beat postfix in raw
> speed of moving mail in and/or out by over 15%.
that must be specific to your particular hardware and/or usage, because it's
contrary to every other postfi
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:14:43PM -0800, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> Okay since I had a 3-year-old Exim configuration file, I decided to
> take a brand-new one and then use "diff" to find what I needed to move over.
>
> Hopefully now, it is rejecting bad recipients at SMTP time. However,
> it's a
Okay since I had a 3-year-old Exim configuration file, I decided to
take a brand-new one and then use "diff" to find what I needed to move over.
Hopefully now, it is rejecting bad recipients at SMTP time. However,
it's also sending me "Message frozen" messages every time it freezes
somethin
As I'm sure most people in here are, we're getting lots of bounces of worm
messages our users didn't send. Can't be helped, really, but unfortunately,
we've been getting quite a few from people using qmail (misconfigured, i assume)
which bounces the entire message back, and doesn't do any sort of
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:37:07PM +0100, Thomas GOIRAND wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Why doesn't Exim ever clean out /var/spool/exim/input?
>
>
> >
Okay since I had a 3-year-old Exim configuration file, I decided to
take a brand-new one and then use "diff" to find what I needed to move over.
Hopefully now, it is rejecting bad recipients at SMTP time. However,
it's also sending me "Message frozen" messages every time it freezes
somethin
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:37:07PM +0100, Thomas GOIRAND wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Why doesn't Exim ever clean out /var/spool/ex
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_3
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_3
What generation of DL380?
The G1 version runs fine with stable and 2.4.18-bf, it recognizes the
raid volume at boot time, after running the smartstart to create the
volume.
--
Joost
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 11:18, Benoit PEREIRA DA SILVA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have two Compaq DL380 dual processors wi
What generation of DL380?
The G1 version runs fine with stable and 2.4.18-bf, it recognizes the
raid volume at boot time, after running the smartstart to create the
volume.
--
Joost
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 11:18, Benoit PEREIRA DA SILVA wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have two Compaq DL380 dual processors wi
Hi,
We have two Compaq DL380 dual processors with a RAID SCSI bay.
The standard install do not see any harddrive.
We suppose we should use CCISS module but we do not find the binary.
Can someone help ?
Bpds
Joey Hess said the following on 29/01/04 21:48:
Ronny Adsetts wrote:
The original poster is simply not keeping his queue clean of frozen
messages.
Shouldn't that be the MTA's job? I never understood why exim has such
brain-dead defaults as requring an admin to manually deal with "frozen"
messages.
Hi,
We have two Compaq DL380 dual processors with a RAID SCSI bay.
The standard install do not see any harddrive.
We suppose we should use CCISS module but we do not find the binary.
Can someone help ?
Bpds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
Joey Hess said the following on 29/01/04 21:48:
Ronny Adsetts wrote:
The original poster is simply not keeping his queue clean of frozen
messages.
Shouldn't that be the MTA's job? I never understood why exim has such
brain-dead defaults as requring an admin to manually deal with "frozen"
message
In case someone has similar problem in the future: the card seems to
work OK with the megaraid.o driver in 2.4.24. I didn't succeed in using
the same driver in 2.4.28-bf2.4, it just said "No such device".
regards
Macin
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
G
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:02, Jeff S Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know anything about thos 2.4.23 I/O problem, but I will tell you
> that RAID 5 is not the way to go for big SQL performance. In a RAID 5
> array, all the heads must move for every operation. You already spent a
> lot of
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 05:58, Joe Emenaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because, like you mentioned later in your message, not all mailers give
> proper responses. For example, I've see a lot of 5xx codes where the
> verbal explanation is that the user is over quota.
5xx is the correct thing to do wh
In case someone has similar problem in the future: the card seems to
work OK with the megaraid.o driver in 2.4.24. I didn't succeed in using
the same driver in 2.4.28-bf2.4, it just said "No such device".
regards
Macin
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
G
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:02, Jeff S Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know anything about thos 2.4.23 I/O problem, but I will tell you
> that RAID 5 is not the way to go for big SQL performance. In a RAID 5
> array, all the heads must move for every operation. You already spent a
> lot of
33 matches
Mail list logo
