Can long queue_ids be used as a globally unique identifier within a multi
server setup? I guess the chances decrease as the disk space and inode
numbers increase and increase as the number of servers and number of mails
processed increase.
I was not able to do the math but trying to come up with a
Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> Can long queue_ids be used as a globally unique identifier within a multi
> server setup?
As documented, the queue ID is made up from inode number and time.
The inode number is unique only within a single file system.
Wietse
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> > Can long queue_ids be used as a globally unique identifier within a multi
> > server setup?
>
> As documented, the queue ID is made up from inode number and time.
> The inode number is unique only within a single
Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu:
> > > Can long queue_ids be used as a globally unique identifier within a multi
> > > server setup?
> >
> > As documented, the queue ID is made up from inode number and time.
> > The inode
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Yes, micro seconds and inode number.
>
> As documented, long queue IDs also include the epoch time in seconds.
>
Yes, I meant time in microsecond resolution. That is mainly the reason why
I thought about using it globally, but I'll use qu
Thanks for the feedback on the Dovecot issue. It is great knowing that I'll be
approaching the Dovecot volunteers prepared in the sense of Postfix being in
fairly good shape.
I slept with one nagging question about my hostname...
>
>/etc/hostname
># begin /etc/hostname
> example.com
># eof
>
Am 12.12.2014 um 15:48 schrieb Noel Jones:
On 12/12/2014 8:24 AM, Isaac Grover wrote:
Good morning,
We have users on a domain who are convinced they are losing emails
due to our spam filtering (postscreen, amavis, spamassassin). We
have shown them logs of legitimate spam being filtered with no
On 12 Dec 2014, at 22:47, ghalvor...@hushmail.com wrote:
Hello friends,
I followed a HOWTO document and it wasn't an entire success. I do
want to be more proficient with Postfix and have bought The Book of
Postfix from No Starch and Postfix: The Definitive Guide from
O'Reilly. I've spent a
On 12/13/2014 1:51 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
> Am 12.12.2014 um 15:48 schrieb Noel Jones:
>> On 12/12/2014 8:24 AM, Isaac Grover wrote:
>>> Good morning,
>>>
>>> We have users on a domain who are convinced they are losing emails
>>> due to our spam filtering (postscreen, amavis, spamassassin).
On 12/14/2014 04:28 AM, Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu wrote:
> Yes, I meant time in microsecond resolution. That is mainly the reason
> why I thought about using it globally, but I'll use queue_id@hostname
> instead.
Or you could just use the message ID which is exactly this anyways.
Peter
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:46:28AM +1300, Peter wrote:
> On 12/14/2014 04:28 AM, Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu wrote:
> > Yes, I meant time in microsecond resolution. That is mainly the reason
> > why I thought about using it globally, but I'll use queue_id@hostname
> > instead.
>
> Or you could just use
OK. So these are a little dated.
Any recommendations for HOWTOs that are a more up to date.
On 12/13/2014 5:33 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
On 12 Dec 2014, at 22:47, ghalvor...@hushmail.com wrote:
Hello friends,
I followed a HOWTO document and it wasn't an entire success. I do
want to be more prof
Believe me, if there was a newer book, I would have gladly bought it. It did
worry me that it was as old as it was, but I gather that the email protocol has
changed very little over the past 15 years.
A HOWTO that has been around for a few months is still nice, especially if the
author maintai
On 13 Dec 2014, at 17:31, John wrote:
OK. So these are a little dated.
Which does not mean bad or wrong. I can't even judge how dated that
Ubuntu HOW-TO is or where it might be wrong: I don't use Ubuntu as a
mail platform, it has no date, and it mostly talks about details that
refer to thin
On 13 Dec 2014, at 21:53, ghalvor...@hushmail.com wrote:
Believe me, if there was a newer book, I would have gladly bought it.
It did worry me that it was as old as it was, but I gather that the
email protocol has changed very little over the past 15 years.
Protocols are mostly stable. Tools
15 matches
Mail list logo
