On Wednesday 10 November 2004 23.29, Chris Wagner wrote:
It's 'you' - three letters :-)
> If u still need RAID 5 then I would make the
> stripe size equal to average file size / number of data disks up to no
> more than 32KB stripe.
To optimize random small reads, it's best if a read can be sati
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 05:29:37PM -0500, Chris Wagner wrote:
> I would say that RAID 5 is probably overkill for a mail queue.
It's not the mail queue. Its the mail store (maildirs). We have no
problems with mail queue performance so far.
> Unless ur
> mail queue is running hundreds of gigabytes
I would say that RAID 5 is probably overkill for a mail queue. Unless ur
mail queue is running hundreds of gigabytes and overloading a single disk, a
normal single hard drive is sufficient. Based on ur graph it looks like ur
queue is under half a gig. If you want redundancy for the mail queue the
Hi,
..seeing recent the exim vs postfix thread, and having both
apache-1.3.3x and apache-2.0.5x available on a box, is obviously
beyond overkill, it's pointless. ;-) So I'm choosing one. Figuring
out "which one?" has asking myself a lot of questions.
..more importantly, do I lose _anything_
Hi!
http://mail1.expro.pl/~porridge/dist.png shows the distribution of file
sizes on our mail server (actually just the partition holding maildirs).
The sample was 80 files.
"-512" means zero-byte files.
"0" means the files whose sizes are greater than zero, but less than 512.
"512": greate
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Robert Brockway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041110 20:20]:
> > Oh you mean reject mail for unknown recipients rather than bounce the
> > mail[1]. Ok, I can see why you are suggesting it but it is an RFC
> > violation.
>
> Why should it be a RFC violation to
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:18:50PM -0500, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > if you do have a backup MX, then you need to have the same anti-spam
> > & anti-virus rules as on your primary server AND (most important!) it
> > needs to have a list of valid recipient
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:10:18PM -0500, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > backup MX is obsolete these days, very few people need it (most of
>
> This does seem to be a prevailing opinion but I think backup MXs are
> valuable now for the same reason they al
* Robert Brockway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041110 20:20]:
> Oh you mean reject mail for unknown recipients rather than bounce the
> mail[1]. Ok, I can see why you are suggesting it but it is an RFC
> violation.
Why should it be a RFC violation to reject mail for unknown recipients
with 550? If a remo
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> if you do have a backup MX, then you need to have the same anti-spam
> & anti-virus rules as on your primary server AND (most important!) it
> needs to have a list of valid recipients, so that it can 5xx reject
> mail for unknown users rather than accept
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> backup MX is obsolete these days, very few people need it (most of
This does seem to be a prevailing opinion but I think backup MXs are
valuable now for the same reason they always were - outages happen. We
have no way of knowing how long a remote MTA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 11:09:47AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.10.1014 +0100]:
> > > I agree. But exim can do it. And even though this is the LDA
> > > part of it, postfix also includes an LDA, which is just not up
> > > to speed.
> >
> >
Michael Graham wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Christopher Swingley wrote:
Change the ownership and permissions on their .bash_profile and .bashrc
to root:root 644:
-rw-r--r--1 root root 420 Sep 21 13:05
.bash_profile -rw-r--r--1 root root 746 Sep 21
13:05 .ba
also sprach Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.10.1014 +0100]:
> > I agree. But exim can do it. And even though this is the LDA
> > part of it, postfix also includes an LDA, which is just not up
> > to speed.
>
> and postfix can do it too.
No, it cannot, unless you use spamassassin as the
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:19:49AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.10.0901 +0100]:
> > > Anyway, if you are so confident about postfix, then maybe you
> > > can teach me how to set up spamassassin to run under the local
> > > user's identity,
>
also sprach Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.10.0901 +0100]:
> > Anyway, if you are so confident about postfix, then maybe you
> > can teach me how to set up spamassassin to run under the local
> > user's identity,
>
> procmail, maildrop or whatever local delivery agent you use can
> run
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 08:21:14AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.10.0010 +0100]:
> > > There have been some very simple things that I've needed to find
> > > solutions to with postfix in the past which I ended up having to
> > > do with procm
18 matches
Mail list logo
