On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:28:11PM -0800, David Ford wrote:
> Some wild blatherings about sendmail...
Warning: the following will likely be seen by some as flamebait. I've
long ago divorced myself from sendmail to save my own sanity.
> - Uses lots of memory to send a big file.
> Incorrect.
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:38:31AM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> It is good that you raised the issue -
THanks
Jeff
>
> Cheers,
>
> jjs
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please r
I have found that lowering the MTU helps a lot. If it is a particular route,
simply add an additional route with the lower limit set. The tradeoff of
efficiency v.s. reliability is improved.
-d
Horst von Brand wrote:
> In my experience, if you try to send large messages over unreliable
> netw
"Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
[...]
> > Ok. So please now show a tcpdump trace during the `sendmail -q` so we
> > can see what's going wrong in the TCP connection to the smtp server:
> >
> > tcpdump port smtp
> I tried to send
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:40:42PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>>
>>
>> >We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
>>
>> > -O QueueLA=20
>>
>> >and
>>
>> > -O RefuseLA=18
>>
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> NT and NetWare servers don't stop forwarding
> emails when the load average gets too high -- they just work out of the
> box, and hopefully, no so will Linux (our distribution does now since
> this problem in fixed).
Don't get me started on nt - saying it "just works" i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>I guess all customers are idiots then, since about 100+ people who were
>using our release downloaded it, and had these problems with sendmail. This
>disconnect of yours is about what I would expect from someone in a University.
>Some of us don't have
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:40:42PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>
>
> >We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
>
> > -O QueueLA=20
>
> >and
>
> > -O RefuseLA=18
>
> >Need to be cranked up in sendmail.cf to something hi
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:24:18PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>
> >I did Dick. The config is fine. The daemon is also fine and running.
> >What's really weird is that even if I do a "sendmail -v -q" command
> >(which should force the qu
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 12:54:20PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Yes, the documentation is broken. Linus did in fact implement this
>
> Well, also the implementation could be improved IMHO, think when we have one
> houndred o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dominik Kubla) writes:
>I can do better! I had a smart ass trying to backup his harddrives
>using email, no less than 2Gig!
So what? Get enough spool space in /var/spool/mqueue and a platform
with 64 bit file support and it works just fine. I have some boxes
where the users se
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard A Nelson) writes:
>I have several boxen running sendmail with fair to moderate loading -
>they even occasionally don't accept mail... and thats good, as it lets
>the system catch up with its current load. As soon as things stabalize,
>sendmail again accepts connections
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Assmann) writes:
>> Sending a 50 MB file is OK here. So it's not a TCP/IP bug.
>Ok, hopefully this reaches everyone who has been "involved"
>by Jeff into this "problem".
So it is _once_ _again_ a Jeff "I have no clue but I know Linux-Kernel
list is cheaper than tech su
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>I did Dick. The config is fine. The daemon is also fine and running.
>What's really weird is that even if I do a "sendmail -v -q" command
>(which should force the queue to flush) it still doesn't.
O Timeout.ident=0s
O Timeout.initial=30s (these are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
> -O QueueLA=20
>and
> -O RefuseLA=18
>Need to be cranked up in sendmail.cf to something high since the
>background VM on a very busy Linux box seems to exceed this which causes
>large email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>The sendmail folks are claiming that the TCPIP stack in Linux is broken,
>which is what they claim is causing problems on sendmail on Linux
>platforms. Before anyone says, "don't use that piece of shit sendmail,
>use qmail instead", perhaps we should l
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes, the documentation is broken. Linus did in fact implement this
Well, also the implementation could be improved IMHO, think when we have one
houndred of tasks sleeping in uninterruptible mode because the nfs server is
down for
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Claus Assmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Why does Linux report a LA of 10 if there are only two processes
> > running?
> >
>
> Load Average = runnable processes (R) + processes in disk wa
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> >
> > They're not modprobes, they're misnamed processes sleeping from NWFS.
> > I got the fix from someone so now they display their proper names.
> > top displays the names correctly, ps does not. Several people have
> > verified this problem,
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> They're not modprobes, they're misnamed processes sleeping from NWFS.
> I got the fix from someone so now they display their proper names.
> top displays the names correctly, ps does not. Several people have
> verified this problem, and all you are saying is that your
> They're not modprobes, they're misnamed processes sleeping from NWFS.
If they're sleeping, why are they in D state? That ups the load average.
> I got the fix from someone so now they display their proper names.
> top displays the names correctly, ps does not. Several people have
> verified
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:46:53PM -0800, David Ford wrote:
> To be honest Jeff, most of my sendmail systems have default load values
> and large (read created by microsoft mua) emails make it through
> constantly with no distinguishable delays. I just launched 45 "cat
> core|mail [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 06:02:28PM -0800, David Ford wrote:
> > > With a handle like
> > > "Assmann", deviation is proably something you already understand quite
> > > well ...
> >
> > Don't be a moron. Claus is German, Assman really is his last name and
> > not some "handle", and it's pronoun
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:15:53PM -0800, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> Jeff V. Merkey writes:
> > There was also an issue relative to how sendmail is interpreting load
> > average on a linux box. [EMAIL PROTECTED] pointed out that perhaps you
> > are not factoring sleeping processes, which Linux
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ralf Baechle wrote:
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> > > the way load average is calculated (s
> > With a handle like
> > "Assmann", deviation is proably something you already understand quite
> > well ...
>
> Don't be a moron. Claus is German, Assman really is his last name and
> not some "handle", and it's pronounced "Oss-man".
Claus is a well liked, knowledgable and well experienced
I have this exact argument at work every so often. People coming in from
an NT environment have difficulty understanding what it is/means and
that it's not neccessarily bad when load gets above 1, etc, etc, etc.
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wro
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> > the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
> >
> > [... sendmail person ...]
> >
> > Ok, here's my bl
Jeff,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
>
> [... sendmail person ...]
>
> Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks. Why does it hav
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Numerically high load averages aren't inherently a bad thing. There
> > isn't anything bad about a system with a loadavg of 20 if it does what
> > it should in the time you'd expect. However, if your
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Numerically high load averages aren't inherently a bad thing. There
> isn't anything bad about a system with a loadavg of 20 if it does what
> it should in the time you'd expect. However, if your daemons start
> blocking because
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> - Requires high load average allowance
> Incorrect. Same machine barely spiked a tenth of a point for this load and
>dropped
> back to .05. Only time I adjusted the configured
Jeff V. Merkey writes:
> There was also an issue relative to how sendmail is interpreting load
> average on a linux box. [EMAIL PROTECTED] pointed out that perhaps you
> are not factoring sleeping processes, which Linux does -- a deviation
> from BSD's interpretation of load average.
At wors
To be honest Jeff, most of my sendmail systems have default load values
and large (read created by microsoft mua) emails make it through
constantly with no distinguishable delays. I just launched 45 "cat
core|mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]" and core is a 10 meg binary file. It
results in a 14 meg total
David Ford wrote:
David,
We got to the bottom of it. sendmail is using a BSD method to react to
load average which is different than what linux is providing. You have
to crank up
O QueueLA = 18
O RefuseLA = 12
on a busy Linux server since the defaults will result in large emails
never get
Some wild blatherings about sendmail...
- Uses lots of memory to send a big file.
Incorrect. I just verified it with a 10 meg file which became a 14 meg attachment.
Sendmail consumed an additional 5 megs combined while handling the input and output
v.s.
an idle daemon. Idle is 1.8M, recv w
> > > Turn on encryption, and try sending attachements > 1MB and tell me if
> > > you see any problems, like emails sitting in /var/spool/mqueue for a day
> > > or two until they go out. I can guarantee you will.
> >
> > Are you talking client -> MTA encryption, or MTA -> MTA encryption ??
>
>
Claus Assmann wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> >
> > > > It ran out of memory. The file got sent fine after I got rid of
> > > > all the memory-consumers. Looks like a sendmail bug where they
> > > > expect to load a whole file into memory all at once before sending
>
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> > > It ran out of memory. The file got sent fine after I got rid of
> > > all the memory-consumers. Looks like a sendmail bug where they
> > > expect to load a whole file into memory all at once before sending
> > > it. I always thought you could
> > It ran out of memory. The file got sent fine after I got rid of
> > all the memory-consumers. Looks like a sendmail bug where they
> > expect to load a whole file into memory all at once before sending
> > it. I always thought you could read from a file, then write to
> > a socket. Maybe I'm
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Claus Assmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Why does Linux report a LA of 10 if there are only two processes
> running?
>
Load Average = runnable processes (R) + processes in disk wait (D).
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTEC
[ ... named redacted by request ... ] wrote:
>
> > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> > the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
> >
> > [... sendmail person ...]
> >
> >> Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks. Why does it have a load
> >
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, [iso-8859-1] willy tarreau wrote:
> Dick, have you tried a simple "strace -f -p " ?
> This often gives enough info.
>
> BTW, there's one version of sendmail that tests the
> capability security hole of a previous kernel version
> (2.2.15 ?), and refuses to launch if it disco
Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> > Turn on encryption, and try sending attachements > 1MB and tell me if
> > you see any problems, like emails sitting in /var/spool/mqueue for a day
> > or two until they go out. I can guarantee you will.
>
> Are you talking client -> MTA encryption, or MTA -> MTA
Claus Assmann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > I have dual T1 lines going into the box, and I just added a 4-way ADSL
> > circuit as well (4 x 550K). Claus claimed there were TCPIP timeout bugs
You said there were TCPIP timeout bugs. I can go retrieve the email.
> Turn on encryption, and try sending attachements > 1MB and tell me if
> you see any problems, like emails sitting in /var/spool/mqueue for a day
> or two until they go out. I can guarantee you will.
Are you talking client -> MTA encryption, or MTA -> MTA encryption ??
> Jeff
Igma
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
> > >settings.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I have dual T1 lines going into the box, and I just added a 4-way ADSL
> circuit as well (4 x 550K). Claus claimed there were TCPIP timeout bugs
Please DON'T quote me wrong. This is getting very annoying.
Is that your way to spread rumours and false
> > Yes. Plus 8.11.1 has problems talking to older sendmails sine it uses
> > encryption.
>
> I've been using sendmail-8.11.1 (no encryption) to talk to MTAs all over
> the place, many of them so old it is scary. No problems seen at this end.
> This is to be expected, BTW: They can't just go in
> > What about sendmail 8.11.1? Is the problem there too?
>
> Yes. Plus 8.11.1 has problems talking to older sendmails sine it uses
> encryption.
Depends on how you configure it. An enabled encryption doesn't always mean
it has problems taking to other sendmails. This sendmail here has no
pro
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, David Lang wrote:
> how many CPUs in these high loadave boxes? unless you have a very
> impressive machine (8+SMP) the defaults should be plenty high.
>
> also I thought the QueueLA default was 8 and the RefuseLA was 12 or have
> they been bumped up since I last examined the
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> >
> > Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come If sendmail cannot run
> > on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
> > clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Davide Libenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Claus Assmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > Looks like your bug. As an FYI, sendmail.rpms in Suse, RedHat, and
> > > OpenLinux
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
> >settings. The defaults in the RedHat, Suse, and Open
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come If sendmail cannot run
> on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
> clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
> running qmail, and it doesn't
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Neil W Rickert wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
> >settings. The defaults in the RedHat, Suse, and OpenLinux RPMs are
> >clearly set too low for modern Linux kernels. You may
>
> David Lang
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:52:01 -0700
> > From: Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail wi
Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come If sendmail cannot run
on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
running qmail, and it doesn't have these problems.
Jeff
Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> "
Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:52:01 -0700
> From: Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with attachments in
> /var/spool/mqueue
>
>
>
> Hey guys,
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
>settings. The defaults in the RedHat, Suse, and OpenLinux RPMs are
>clearly set too low for modern Linux kernels. You may want them cranked
>up to 100 or something if you want
Hey guys,
We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
-O QueueLA=20
and
-O RefuseLA=18
Need to be cranked up in sendmail.cf to something high since the
background VM on a very busy Linux box seems to exceed this which causes
large emails to get stuck in the /var/spool/mqueue
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Davide Libenzi wrote:
[Please use a MTA that sends the e-mail only once to a given machine,
we got three copies of this]
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Claus Assmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > Looks like your bug. As an FYI, sendmail.rpms in Suse,
"William F. Maton" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:07:46PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > > > It isn't a TCP/IP stack problem. It may be a memory problem. Every time
> > > > sendmail spawns a child
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > Looks like your bug. As an FYI, sendmail.rpms in Suse, RedHat, and
> > OpenLinux all exhibit this behavior, which means they're all broken.
>
> Sorry, this is plain wrong. sendmail does NOT read the enti
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:07:46PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > > It isn't a TCP/IP stack problem. It may be a memory problem. Every time
> > > sendmail spawns a child to send the file data, it crashes. That's
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > It ran out of memory. The file got sent fine after I got rid of
> > all the memory-consumers. Looks like a sendmail bug where they
> > expect to load a whole file into memory all at once before sending
> > it. I always
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
>
>
> It ran out of memory. The file got sent fine after I got rid of
> all the memory-consumers. Looks like a sendmail bug where they
> expect to load a whole file into memory all at once before sending
> it. I always thought you could read from a file, then writ
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:07:46PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > It isn't a TCP/IP stack problem. It may be a memory problem. Every time
> > sendmail spawns a child to send the file data, it crashes. That's
> > why the file never gets sent!
>
Claus,
Richard appears to have found a problem while sending a 45MB file to me
with 8.11.10. I guess it's time for you to join the thread. Please
review attached.
Jeff
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:34:40PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
>
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:07:46PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > > It isn't a TCP/IP stack problem. It may be a memory problem. Every time
> > > sendmail spawns a child to send the file data, it crashes. T
Andre,
SSH is running on this system, so send me your IP address to add to the
hosts.allow file and I'll send you an account so you can get into the
box and see just what's happening with ssh. Andre Hedrick has root
privileges on this machine, so if I'm ever not around, he can get into
it. I a
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:07:46PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > It isn't a TCP/IP stack problem. It may be a memory problem. Every time
> > sendmail spawns a child to send the file data, it crashes. That's
> > why the file never gets sent!
>
> Sure that cou
Dick, have you tried a simple "strace -f -p " ?
This often gives enough info.
BTW, there's one version of sendmail that tests the
capability security hole of a previous kernel version
(2.2.15 ?), and refuses to launch if it discovers it.
It may be possible that sendmail does other tests like
this
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:07:46PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> It isn't a TCP/IP stack problem. It may be a memory problem. Every time
> sendmail spawns a child to send the file data, it crashes. That's
> why the file never gets sent!
Sure that could be the case. You should be able to ver
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:34:40PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > Andrea,
> >
> > All done. It's already setup this way.
>
> Ok. So please now show a tcpdump trace during the `sendmail -q` so we can see
> what's going wrong in the TCP conne
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:34:40PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Andrea,
>
> All done. It's already setup this way.
Ok. So please now show a tcpdump trace during the `sendmail -q` so we can see
what's going wrong in the TCP connection to the smtp server:
tcpdump port smtp
Andrea
-
On 11/10/2000 16:30 -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
>> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Horst von Brand wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > I've been using sendmail-8.11.1 (no encryption) to talk to MTAs all over
>>
>> > Turn on encryption, and try
Andrea,
All done. It's already setup this way.
Jeff
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:45:39AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > > > > [..] Issuing the command "sendmail -v
> > > > > > -q" does not flush the mail queue. [..]
>
> So first thing to do is to check that in
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:45:39AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > > > [..] Issuing the command "sendmail -v
> > > > > -q" does not flush the mail queue. [..]
So first thing to do is to check that in /etc/sendmail.cf this line is
commented out this way:
#O HostStatusDirectory=...
(if you bu
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, William F. Maton wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The sendmail folks are claiming that the TCPIP stack in Linux is broken,
> > > which is what they claim is causing problems on sendmail on Linux
> > > p
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, William F. Maton wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> >
> > The sendmail folks are claiming that the TCPIP stack in Linux is broken,
> > which is what they claim is causing problems on sendmail on Linux
> > platforms. Before anyone says, "don't use that
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Horst von Brand wrote:
[...]
> > I've been using sendmail-8.11.1 (no encryption) to talk to MTAs all over
> Turn on encryption, and try sending attachements > 1MB and tell me if
> you see any problems, like emails sitting in /var/spool/mqueue for a d
Claus is sloging into the box and we will be trying to track this down.
If it is a problem in the Linux TCPIP stack, we'll post a report later
this afternoon as to where it looks like the problem is.
Jeff
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> Since I posted this on LKML, Claus over at sendmail.org s
Since I posted this on LKML, Claus over at sendmail.org seems more
motivated to track it down. (since it might appear on the front page of
Linux today). I would love your assistance Richard.
It could be a local problem since smrsh also seems to be f_cked up as
well, but I am seeing the same t
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > "William F. Maton" wrote:
> > >
> > > What about sendmail 8.11.1? Is the problem there too?
> >
> > Yes. Plus 8.11.1 has problems talking to older sendmails sine it uses
> > encryption.
>
> Eh?!? T
Send me an email from it with an attachment > 1MB, and I will forward
back to you when (and if) It gets delivered before next week.
:-)
Jeff
Richard A Nelson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > "William F. Maton" wrote:
> > >
> > > What about sendmail 8.11.1? Is the
Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SAID:
> > "William F. Maton" wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > What about sendmail 8.11.1? Is the problem there too?
>
> > Yes. Plus 8.11.1 has problems talking to older sendmails sine it uses
> > encryption.
>
> I've been using sendm
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SAID:
> "William F. Maton" wrote:
[...]
> > What about sendmail 8.11.1? Is the problem there too?
> Yes. Plus 8.11.1 has problems talking to older sendmails sine it uses
> encryption.
I've been using sendmail-8.11.1 (no encryption) to talk to MTAs all ove
Richard A Nelson wrote:
>
> Any `real` reason you're still at 8.9.3? Current is 8.11.1
>
> If you send me a note of the type that fails, (to [EMAIL PROTECTED]),
> it'll get received on both a 2.2.18-21/8.11.1 and 2.4.0-test10/8.11.2.Beta0
8.11.1 has problems talking to older sendmails and q
"William F. Maton" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> >
> > The sendmail folks are claiming that the TCPIP stack in Linux is broken,
> > which is what they claim is causing problems on sendmail on Linux
> > platforms. Before anyone says, "don't use that piece of shit se
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> The sendmail folks are claiming that the TCPIP stack in Linux is broken,
> which is what they claim is causing problems on sendmail on Linux
> platforms. Before anyone says, "don't use that piece of shit sendmail,
> use qmail instead", perhaps we s
The sendmail folks are claiming that the TCPIP stack in Linux is broken,
which is what they claim is causing problems on sendmail on Linux
platforms. Before anyone says, "don't use that piece of shit sendmail,
use qmail instead", perhaps we should look at this problem and refute
these statements
92 matches
Mail list logo
