On 09/24/2010 04:56 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>>> Even then, a 1000 recipient list should be spread across two local(8)
>>> processes, each delivering transactions of 50 recipients side by side.
>>> I don't see that happen, so I suspect the measurement is inconclusive.
>>
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> > Even then, a 1000 recipient list should be spread across two local(8)
> > processes, each delivering transactions of 50 recipients side by side.
> > I don't see that happen, so I suspect the measurement is inconclusive.
>
> Unfortunately it doesn't. :-(
Actually, mul
On 09/24/2010 03:44 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
I did a test run with the following aliases:
testlist: me
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >>> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
> >>
> >> I did a test run with the following aliases:
> >>
> >> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
> >> owner-testlist: ro
On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>>> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>>
>> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>>
>> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
>> owner-testlist: root
>> member1: leo
>> member2: tes
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> With one local(8) process, requeuing wouldn't make any difference, the
> been_here table would fill just as much as without an owner- alias.
That is incorrect.
With _destination_recipient_limit=1, there will be one recipient
per local(8) transaction. All local(8) state
On 09/24/2010 03:07 PM, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
> On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>>>
>>> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>>>
>>> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
>>>
On 09/24/2010 02:31 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>>> Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>>
>> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>>
>> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
>> owner-testlist: root
>> member1: leo
>> member2: tes
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> > Have you already tried the "no RESET_OWNER_ATTR()" solution?
>
> I did a test run with the following aliases:
>
> testlist: member1, member2, leo2
> owner-testlist: root
> member1: leo
> member2: testleo
> # leo2 is a real user
>
> It requeues th
Wietse Venema:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:26:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > >
> > > > More sensibly, it seems safe to skip the RESET_OWNER_ATTR() operation.
> > > > That code is a remnant of a very early attempt to attribute bounces
> > > > very ac
On 09/24/2010 12:42 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> On 09/24/2010 01:26 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
The other misfeature that I'd like to point out again is the behavior of
been_here() when the hash table is full.
>>>
>>> The alternatives
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> On 09/24/2010 01:26 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >> The other misfeature that I'd like to point out again is the behavior of
> >> been_here() when the hash table is full.
> >
> > The alternatives to a limited-size hash are a) run out of memor
On 09/24/2010 01:26 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> The other misfeature that I'd like to point out again is the behavior of
>> been_here() when the hash table is full.
>
> The alternatives to a limited-size hash are a) run out of memory and
> try to deliver mail repeatedly
Wietse Venema:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:26:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > More sensibly, it seems safe to skip the RESET_OWNER_ATTR() operation.
> > > That code is a remnant of a very early attempt to attribute bounces
> > > very accurately, and may be creating
Victor Duchovni:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:26:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > More sensibly, it seems safe to skip the RESET_OWNER_ATTR() operation.
> > That code is a remnant of a very early attempt to attribute bounces
> > very accurately, and may be creating more problems than it solv
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 07:26:59PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> More sensibly, it seems safe to skip the RESET_OWNER_ATTR() operation.
> That code is a remnant of a very early attempt to attribute bounces
> very accurately, and may be creating more problems than it solves.
I think this idea has
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 09/23/2010 11:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >> OK, now I know why my messages are not requeued.
> >>
> >> First of all: The owner- alias IS REALLY set up correctly. :-)
> >>
> >> But if me
On 09/23/2010 11:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> OK, now I know why my messages are not requeued.
>>
>> First of all: The owner- alias IS REALLY set up correctly. :-)
>>
>> But if members of the list are aliases themselves, requeuing via cleanup
>> won't work for them. Un
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> OK, now I know why my messages are not requeued.
>
> First of all: The owner- alias IS REALLY set up correctly. :-)
>
> But if members of the list are aliases themselves, requeuing via cleanup
> won't work for them. Unfortunately, this is currently the case for my
> re
On 09/23/2010 03:48 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 03:36:27PM +0200, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
>> When the owner- alias IS configured correctly, HOW is delivery
>> distributed to multiple processes?
>
> See the deliver_indirect() code. A new message is put in the queue,
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 03:36:27PM +0200, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 01:11 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >> However, I didn't notice any change such as separate processing of
> >> destination addresses.
> >>
> >> And I also cannot confirm that it use
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> On 09/23/2010 01:11 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >> However, I didn't notice any change such as separate processing of
> >> destination addresses.
> >>
> >> And I also cannot confirm that it uses a new queue id for each
> >> recipient. At whic
On 09/23/2010 01:11 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> However, I didn't notice any change such as separate processing of
>> destination addresses.
>>
>> And I also cannot confirm that it uses a new queue id for each
>> recipient. At which stage should the split happen?
>
> Wh
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> However, I didn't notice any change such as separate processing of
> destination addresses.
>
> And I also cannot confirm that it uses a new queue id for each
> recipient. At which stage should the split happen?
When the owner- alias is configured correctly, Postfix cre
On 09/23/2010 01:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> Ah! The problem seems to be the duplicate_filter_limit!
>>
>> I set it to 1 and now everything works fine!
>
> For the last time, you really should use the proper owner- alias
> when delivering mail to a list. Then, on
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> Ah! The problem seems to be the duplicate_filter_limit!
>
> I set it to 1 and now everything works fine!
For the last time, you really should use the proper owner- alias
when delivering mail to a list. Then, one local(8) process will
never attempt to deliver more t
On 09/22/2010 04:53 PM, Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 01:22 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>>> On 09/21/2010 10:57 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> Since yesterday I am experiencing big problems when delivering mail to
> an a
> >>> Do you have the RIGHT owner-listname alias.
> I am using alias_maps:
>
> # postconf | grep ldap
> alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases, ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-aliases.cf,
> ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-groups.cf
>
> My owner- address is defined in hash:/etc/aliases and my list address in
> ldap:/etc/po
On 09/22/2010 01:22 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> On 09/21/2010 10:57 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
Since yesterday I am experiencing big problems when delivering mail to
an alias-list. (Yes, I have set up an owner-listname alias. :-))
>>
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> I can smoothly send mails directly to the users with the problematic
> .forward files. (Directly as opposed to sending via the list-address.)
It also behaves as expected when I include "wietse" (with /dev/null
and \wietse in my .forward file) in an alias, whether or not
On 09/22/2010 05:20 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> The file contains:
>> 8<
>> x...@gmail.com
>> \lhock
>
> Your loop does not reproduce.
I know. :(
I don't think that the .forward file or its format are causing the problems.
I
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> The file contains:
> 8<
> x...@gmail.com
> \lhock
Your loop does not reproduce.
With this in my own .forward file:
/dev/null
\wietse
Sending mail to wietse results in one copy to /dev/null
and one copy to the mailbox file, an
On 09/22/2010 01:22 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> On 09/21/2010 10:57 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
Since yesterday I am experiencing big problems when delivering mail to
an alias-list. (Yes, I have set up an owner-listname alias. :-))
T
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> On 09/21/2010 10:57 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >> Since yesterday I am experiencing big problems when delivering mail to
> >> an alias-list. (Yes, I have set up an owner-listname alias. :-))
> >
> > Do you have the RIGHT owner-listname alia
On 09/21/2010 10:57 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
>> Since yesterday I am experiencing big problems when delivering mail to
>> an alias-list. (Yes, I have set up an owner-listname alias. :-))
>
> Do you have the RIGHT owner-listname alias.
This seems to be the problem.
I h
Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> Hi!
>
> Since yesterday I am experiencing big problems when delivering mail to
> an alias-list. (Yes, I have set up an owner-listname alias. :-))
Do you have the RIGHT owner-listname alias.
> When delivering mail to a list which is implemented as an
> ldap-alias-list
Hi!
Since yesterday I am experiencing big problems when delivering mail to
an alias-list. (Yes, I have set up an owner-listname alias. :-))
When delivering mail to a list which is implemented as an
ldap-alias-list (currently 289 recipients), the local daemon delivers
most of the mails to local ma
37 matches
Mail list logo
