>> Post to list xmail
Post submitted to moderator for reason: Non-member submission to closed-post
list.
---
Ecartis v1.0.0 - job execution complete.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
Forgive me the cross-post, but this is rather urgent for me :-/
Does anyone know if the Debian kernel in woody-proposed-updates (2.4.22)
supports Intel SRCU42X SCSI RAID contoller?
Intel's web page says that it is supported by Suse and RH, but they make
a binary driver available for download
-- Virus Warning Message (on imivs01)
Found virus WORM_MIMAIL.R in file data.txt
.exe (in data.zip)
The file data.zip is moved to /wload/imap/app/trend/var/quarantine/virSKFPIbyMw.
The Barclays Internet mail sy
Benjamin Sherman said on Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:49:24PM -0600:
> So, I have a couple of questions because this box made it to production
> before the problem was discovered and I can't test as I'd like.
> * If I were to use 64GB HIGHMEM support. Would this problem go away?
Nope.
> * Is the I/O
* Is the I/O patch referenced (by Ingo Molnar) available for 2.4.24?
Possibly; it's certainly not merged into 2.4.24.
Can anyone point me to the specific patch?
I've got some machines in nearly the same configuration. What I ended up doing
was to put an `append="mem=1G"' in the lilo.conf boot sta
Here's a question that has always been bugging me.
Ever since we moved from smail to exim many years ago at my isp, exim
never seems to discard messages in the input queue.
Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retrys for
something like 4 days), we end up with stuff that is
Benjamin Sherman said on Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:16:56PM -0600:
> >I've got some machines in nearly the same configuration. What I ended up
> >doing was to put an `append="mem=1G"' in the lilo.conf boot stanza for the
> >kernel I was using, and rebooted the machine in question.
> >
> >This does
Joe Emenaker wrote:
Here's a question that has always been bugging me.
Ever since we moved from smail to exim many years ago at my isp, exim
never seems to discard messages in the input queue.
Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retrys for
something like 4 days), we end u
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:23:02PM -0800, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retrys for
> something like 4 days), we end up with stuff that is weeks... months
> old. Periodically, it would get pretty full and we'd notice that there
These messages are
Maarten Vink wrote:
Does the output of the "mailq" command provide any useful information
about these messages? My first guess would be that you're dealing with
"frozen" messages
Yup. A lot of them are frozen.
If that is the case, have a look at the "timeout_frozen_after"
setting; this will au
* Joe Emenaker schrieb am 28.01.04 um 22:23 Uhr:
> Here's a question that has always been bugging me.
>
> Ever since we moved from smail to exim many years ago at my isp, exim
> never seems to discard messages in the input queue.
>
> Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retr
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:23:02PM -0800, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> The directory was using 17 megs
that really hurts performance on an ext2/ext3 partition. some other
filesystems (e.g. reiser, xfs) aren't affected so badly by huge directories.
> I'm not talking about the FILES in the directory.
> exim doesn't scale. if you want performance, switch to postfix.
Is there good documentation available for postfix? Last time I looked I
could not find anything close to the quality of exim's. I'd be happy if
that has changed though!
Take care,
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, I
Hi
My smtp server (postfix) was receiving a lot of mails with empty senders
("mail from:<>"), and it sends them as they was from
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I want to change this behaviour, so I added to
main.cf the line
'smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender'
thinking that "<>" is not
Craig Sanders wrote:
i can't answer your question, but here's some relevant advice for you:
exim doesn't scale. if you want performance, switch to postfix.
Yeah... well... I've already moved every other machine I deal with over
to Courier. I like it because it's one-stop-shopping for all of
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:36:29AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i can't answer your question, but here's some relevant advice for you:
>
> exim doesn't scale. if you want performance, switch to postfix.
I'm curious why you say that. I have exim on 3 smtp gateway machines
servicing 11G+ email/da
On Mi, Jan 28, 2004 at 06:48:54 +0100, TomÃs NÃÃez Lirola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> RTFM'ing, I don't find any more option to reject this kind of senders, so I
> don't know what to do...
> Am I doing anything wrong? Can anyone please help me?
You must not reject messages with an empty en
It is an RFC requirement to accept <> as a valid MAIL FROM -- almost all
bounce messages use this as well as certain other circumstances, to
indicate they do not wish to receive a bounce message in the event of a
delivery error. I don't even think that postfix allows it to be turned off
at al
--On Wednesday, January 28, 2004 18:54 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious why you say that. I have exim on 3 smtp gateway machines
servicing 11G+ email/day, hundreds of thousands of actual messages,
doing LDAP lookups for routing, and MailScanner/f-prot running on all
the boxes.
FYI we'v
On January 28, 2004 12:48 pm, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote:
> My smtp server (postfix) was receiving a lot of mails with empty senders
> ("mail from:<>"), and it sends them as they was from
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I want to change this behaviour, so I added to
> main.cf the line
Bounces are sent fro
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the following
remote mailer messages give varying degrees of optimism regarding future
delivery:
550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
452 Mailbox full
452 Insufficient disk space; try again later
421 Too many conc
I am happy that the protocol is so simple.
If it was not for the RFC's, which do not work that well in modern times
where would we work ?
SMTP has been around for a very long time:
"The SMTP specification originally started with the Mail Transfer
Protocol in 1980, evolved into Si
Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Benjamin Sherman said on Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:16:56PM -0600:
I've got some machines in nearly the same configuration. What I ended up
doing was to put an `append="mem=1G"' in the lilo.conf boot stanza for the
kernel I was using, and rebooted the machine in question.
This
Sebastiaan wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
Hi!
Forgive me the cross-post, but this is rather urgent for me :-/
Does anyone know if the Debian kernel in woody-proposed-updates (2.4.22)
supports Intel SRCU42X SCSI RAID contoller?
Intel's web page says that it is supported
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Forgive me the cross-post, but this is rather urgent for me :-/
>
> Does anyone know if the Debian kernel in woody-proposed-updates (2.4.22)
> supports Intel SRCU42X SCSI RAID contoller?
>
> Intel's web page says that it is supported by Sus
>> Post to list xmail
Post submitted to moderator for reason: Non-member submission to closed-post
list.
---
Ecartis v1.0.0 - job execution complete.
Hi!
Forgive me the cross-post, but this is rather urgent for me :-/
Does anyone know if the Debian kernel in woody-proposed-updates (2.4.22)
supports Intel SRCU42X SCSI RAID contoller?
Intel's web page says that it is supported by Suse and RH, but they make
a binary driver available for download
-- Virus Warning Message (on imivs01)
Found virus WORM_MIMAIL.R in file data.txt
.exe (in data.zip)
The file data.zip is moved to /wload/imap/app/trend/var/quarantine/virSKFPIbyMw.
The Barclays Internet mail sy
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Forgive me the cross-post, but this is rather urgent for me :-/
>
> Does anyone know if the Debian kernel in woody-proposed-updates (2.4.22)
> supports Intel SRCU42X SCSI RAID contoller?
>
> Intel's web page says that it is supported by Sus
Benjamin Sherman said on Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:49:24PM -0600:
> So, I have a couple of questions because this box made it to production
> before the problem was discovered and I can't test as I'd like.
> * If I were to use 64GB HIGHMEM support. Would this problem go away?
Nope.
> * Is the I/O
* Is the I/O patch referenced (by Ingo Molnar) available for 2.4.24?
Possibly; it's certainly not merged into 2.4.24.
Can anyone point me to the specific patch?
I've got some machines in nearly the same configuration. What I ended up doing
was to put an `append="mem=1G"' in the lilo.conf boot stan
Here's a question that has always been bugging me.
Ever since we moved from smail to exim many years ago at my isp, exim
never seems to discard messages in the input queue.
Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retrys for
something like 4 days), we end up with stuff that is w
Benjamin Sherman said on Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:16:56PM -0600:
> >I've got some machines in nearly the same configuration. What I ended up
> >doing was to put an `append="mem=1G"' in the lilo.conf boot stanza for the
> >kernel I was using, and rebooted the machine in question.
> >
> >This does
Joe Emenaker wrote:
Here's a question that has always been bugging me.
Ever since we moved from smail to exim many years ago at my isp, exim
never seems to discard messages in the input queue.
Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retrys for
something like 4 days), we end up
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:23:02PM -0800, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retrys for
> something like 4 days), we end up with stuff that is weeks... months
> old. Periodically, it would get pretty full and we'd notice that there
These messages are
Maarten Vink wrote:
Does the output of the "mailq" command provide any useful information
about these messages? My first guess would be that you're dealing with
"frozen" messages
Yup. A lot of them are frozen.
If that is the case, have a look at the "timeout_frozen_after"
setting; this will auto
* Joe Emenaker schrieb am 28.01.04 um 22:23 Uhr:
> Here's a question that has always been bugging me.
>
> Ever since we moved from smail to exim many years ago at my isp, exim
> never seems to discard messages in the input queue.
>
> Even though the single retry rule is the stock one (which retr
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:23:02PM -0800, Joe Emenaker wrote:
> The directory was using 17 megs
that really hurts performance on an ext2/ext3 partition. some other
filesystems (e.g. reiser, xfs) aren't affected so badly by huge directories.
> I'm not talking about the FILES in the directory.
> exim doesn't scale. if you want performance, switch to postfix.
Is there good documentation available for postfix? Last time I looked I
could not find anything close to the quality of exim's. I'd be happy if
that has changed though!
Take care,
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, I
Hi
My smtp server (postfix) was receiving a lot of mails with empty senders
("mail from:<>"), and it sends them as they was from
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I want to change this behaviour, so I added to
main.cf the line
'smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_non_fqdn_sender'
thinking that "<>" is not
Craig Sanders wrote:
i can't answer your question, but here's some relevant advice for you:
exim doesn't scale. if you want performance, switch to postfix.
Yeah... well... I've already moved every other machine I deal with over
to Courier. I like it because it's one-stop-shopping for all of my
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:36:29AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i can't answer your question, but here's some relevant advice for you:
>
> exim doesn't scale. if you want performance, switch to postfix.
I'm curious why you say that. I have exim on 3 smtp gateway machines
servicing 11G+ email/da
On Mi, Jan 28, 2004 at 06:48:54 +0100, TomÃs NÃÃez Lirola <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> RTFM'ing, I don't find any more option to reject this kind of senders, so I
> don't know what to do...
> Am I doing anything wrong? Can anyone please help me?
You must not reject messages with an empty e
It is an RFC requirement to accept <> as a valid MAIL FROM -- almost all
bounce messages use this as well as certain other circumstances, to
indicate they do not wish to receive a bounce message in the event of a
delivery error. I don't even think that postfix allows it to be turned off
at al
--On Wednesday, January 28, 2004 18:54 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious why you say that. I have exim on 3 smtp gateway machines
servicing 11G+ email/day, hundreds of thousands of actual messages,
doing LDAP lookups for routing, and MailScanner/f-prot running on all
the boxes.
FYI we've
On January 28, 2004 12:48 pm, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote:
> My smtp server (postfix) was receiving a lot of mails with empty senders
> ("mail from:<>"), and it sends them as they was from
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I want to change this behaviour, so I added to
> main.cf the line
Bounces are sent fro
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the following
remote mailer messages give varying degrees of optimism regarding future
delivery:
550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
452 Mailbox full
452 Insufficient disk space; try again later
421 Too many conc
I am happy that the protocol is so simple.
If it was not for the RFC's, which do not work that well in modern times
where would we work ?
SMTP has been around for a very long time:
"The SMTP specification originally started with the Mail Transfer
Protocol in 1980, evolved into Si
Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Benjamin Sherman said on Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:16:56PM -0600:
I've got some machines in nearly the same configuration. What I ended up
doing was to put an `append="mem=1G"' in the lilo.conf boot stanza for the
kernel I was using, and rebooted the machine in question.
This
Sebastiaan wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
Hi!
Forgive me the cross-post, but this is rather urgent for me :-/
Does anyone know if the Debian kernel in woody-proposed-updates (2.4.22)
supports Intel SRCU42X SCSI RAID contoller?
Intel's web page says that it is supported by Su
50 matches
Mail list logo
