? or I cannot get the MX record ? or I have an IP but cannot get through
to the box ?
It all sounds to me a DNS issue - The server is also an internal DNS for
the 20 or so PC's in the office - but this "appears" to be fine.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Greg Cope
they all have more ram).
Any clues greatfully recieved.
Greg Cope
### log entries ###
Jun 27 08:24:04 mailgate identd[10709]: request_thread: read(11, ...,
1023) failed: Connection reset by peer
Jun 27 08:24:10 mailgate identd[10719]: request_thread: read(11, ...,
1023) failed: Connection
ail and what needs to be done to tweak outbound
mailing.
Also is tweaking would be a factor of machine load, process type, memory
and outbound bandwidth - has any any cluse on what a PIII 600 with 256
meg Ram and a U2W scsi drive will do ?
Any ideas gratefully recieved.
Greg Cope
>
> Thank you
f anybody is interested in a HOWTO in the future, please
> e-mail me personally.
I would be interested just out of curitosity
Greg Cope
> Regards
>
> Brett Randall
before you know it both have
disappeared, usually after a period of no service due to total
consumtion of system resources.
As for the issues with /dev/children or /dev/mistress ... well I'll shut
up.
I have enjoyed this thread - Thanks.
Greg Cope
>
> --
> Regards
> Pete
- I would buy a few - but the shipping is
outrageous !
Can anything be done about this ? you never know you might sell alot
more!
Greg Cope
>
> Greetz, Peter
> --
> dataloss networks
> '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:31:22AM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> > Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:59:41PM -0600, Vern Hart wrote:
> > > > For what it's worth, cafepress.com now offers four n
e UK
having higher component and rack costs than the US, I am not sure.
I would be interested what people on the list have to say, as I am sure
many have been here before.
Greg Cope
>
> --
> Jeremy Stanley, Infor
Greg Jorgensen wrote:
>
> Sometimes we have our mail server busy sending out a lot of newsletters. While
> it's doing that any other mail sent through the server has to wait in the
> queue. Is there any way to tell qmail that some messages should be processed
> and sent before others? Thanks.
As
ve any nice patches I would be very interested - but my spin on
the issue is KISS - i.e we will scale by adding small nodes - not
expensive boxen, and also going with simple set-ups for the sanity of
the people whom will run this.
I would be very instered in anyone thoughts on theses issues.
Regards
Greg Cope
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jeff
Jeff Mayzurk wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> >> By the way, does anyone have any interest in comparing notes on really high
> >> volume qmail configs? I'm looking for performance in the range of 200-250k
> >> remote deliveries per hour. We're halfway there
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 12:53:27PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> >Out of interest does the Netfilter have a large / battery backed cache
> >to decrease the I/O / disk bottle neck ?
>
> Yes. They have a chunk of NVRAM which ACKs the write
Markus Stumpf wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:54:10PM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> > That's the problem. It's relatively slow throwing a bunch of messages
> > into QMail. It doesn't take a very powerful machine to completely swamp
> > a fairly hefty QMail server, I've found.
>
> I
Dear All
I've setup a qmail / vpopmail combo and added a Virtual domain. This
machine is not connected to the internet (I am using it for local
testing / install scripts for a bunch of servers).
It delivers to know address fine - but when I send a message to a
nonexistant_address@existing_doma
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Ruprecht Helms writes:
> > At 15:36 09.11.00 +, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > >We need a qmail 1.04.
> >
> > Is there a new release (qmail 1.04.) in stable version.
>
> No. I'm suggesting that we need a qmail 1.04. It need only change
> the documentation. The sof
Travis Turner wrote:
>
> Does any one Have a good startup script for qmail on RH 6.2 Linux. The one
> that came with the "Running Qmail" book has some sort of error in it. It
> basically gives me an error on startup that says line 14 error somewhere
> around stop). I would appreciate the help
Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> Thus spake asantos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I find MySQL to be reliable and stable.
>
> Good luck to you, then.
> You will need it.
You may be wishing alot of people luck as I've used it fir 18 months
with no problems
>
> > I only keep logs for 6 months, so i
Van Liedekerke Franky wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to ask if anybody uses qmail in a large scale environment
> running on linux (redhat), because I'm interested in how people configured
> their system (number of filedescriptors, max childs per process, max running
> processes,...)
> Could tho
Dear All
I am considering using a RAMDISK for /var/qmail/queue by buying another
256 meg DIM, as RAM prices appear to be quite low at the moment ;-)
This is for a personalised (time dependant) newsletter system. The RAM
disk would be made / formatted at boot, along with copying an empty
qmail q
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:20:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> >Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> >(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> >5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
occessed messages in the queue -
yet they all work fine.
They were all setup using LWQ.
Any clues appreaciated
Regards
Greg Cope
A look at the mailing list archive suggest that qmail-remote is not
going but:
root 254 0.0 0.1 1052 360 ?S 2000 0:00 svscan
root 263
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
> www.qmail.org.
>
> Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
> fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
> implies that qmail-smtpd has a problem that the
Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> I'd rather see www.qmail.org be changed so that you would have to click
> through a banner page that clearly states that none of those patches is
> necessary to make qmail any more secure, more reliable or faster.
>
> Please don't cripple my work with qmail in the v
> "Jacques WERNERT" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by
> qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've
> defined (verified by chkspawn).
>
> I'm running Solaris 7 U60&U80.
>
> Thanx for any help
They may have bounced and
> Andy Abshagen wrote:
>
> We are in the midst of a security audit performed by Ernst & Young.
> They are claiming something about a DOS situation. What I need to
> find out is whether there are any known DOS situations out there. If
> so what needs to be done to take care of the problem.
>
>
Joanne Pons wrote:
>
> I am having trouble sending mail from an application
> running on the same server as the mail server. If the
> domain/IP of the RECIPIENT is not in the tcp.smtp
> list, I get the "553 sorry, that domain isn't in my
> list of allowed rcpthosts" error. I've read thetcprules
>
Clemens Hermann wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I have a machine with several IP-adresses assigned to it. I installed qmail
> with LWQ. Now I want qmail to "listen" just on one IP. At the moment I
> can connect on any IP. What about pop3d? Here I would like to achive the
> same thing. Thanks in advance.
>
>
Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 12:28:54PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> > tcpserver [ opts ] host port prog
> >
> > Port being an IP address (or 0 for all) to bind to.
>
> Ert? Almost there. "Host being the address blablabla" is mor
Dave Sill wrote:
>
> "JK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I have a Linux 6.2 box with qmail, bind8 and apache on it. It was installed
> >by a Linux consultant
>
> Ugh. BIND might not be your problem at the moment, but it will be
> sooner or later. How could your consultant have been clueful en
> Alex Kramarov wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I have to provide a solution to a series of mail servers
> (geographically distributed), serving from 2 to 10
> users. Every server will support 1 primary (virtual) domain, and
> probably several small ones. I believe that vpopmail+mysql or
> qmail-l
Dear All
I've just noticed something on one of my qmail boxes is that it seems to
reuse msg numbers for example:
@40003aaf6c250f34dc44 new msg 325819
@40003aaf6c250f386e54 info msg 325819: bytes 478 from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> qp 11462 uid 504
@40003aaf6c25104fb284 starting delivery 3:
Mark Delany wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:14:43PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> > Dear All
> >
>
> > I.e msg no 325819 has been reused twice.
> >
> > Everything appears ok - is this something to worry about ?
>
> No. It's entirely normal. T
Andy Bradford wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:11:43 PDT, "Steve Quezadas" wrote:
>
> > Non-authoritative answer:
> > pcrush.com MX preference = 5, mail exchanger = 63.204.40.234
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe that MX records are supposed to be
> names not IP addresses. This could b
Mark Delany wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:38:38PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> > I have a spam-like application that will be sending out thousands of
> > customized single-recipient messages. (It's spam-like because it says
> > "you wrote to us about on ", but unlike spam, they
Mark Delany wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 08:29:37AM +, Greg Cope wrote:
>
> > > I used IO::select to handle running multiple qmail-remotes at the same
> > > time. qmail-remote has a really small footprint so you can run 1000s
> > > of them concu
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
>
> The problem, simply enough, is that you should try very, very hard not
> to have a separate copy of the email on the disk. If you're running
> qmail-inject on each message, then yes, three machines aren't going to
> be enough. On the other hand, three machines of th
56 meg RAM - 1 9 GIG scsi, and a pentium 600) the a twin
ultrasparc 1 gig ram - 1 9 gig scsi that is also our main web server /
mysql server.
The Suse box is at an ISP without good bandwidth, the Sun box is in one
of the best connected places in the UK (were "well connected" is usuall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Here goes on some feed back ...
> >
> > Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well
> > connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using
> > multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down
> >
> >
Bruce Guenter wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:17:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> > My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
>
> When the bandwidth required to send its mail is significantly smaller
> than the bandwidth available. That is, if you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the
> > messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we
>
> I'm sure there are lots of valid reasons, for example it might be
> a late-breaking news email that ages very r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Greg Cope wrote:
>
> > Well we are now looking at a totaly scalable solution - where we just
> > add boxes to scale. Generating the emails is simplistic and quick -
> > injecting into a queue and then processin
> with great success.
Is there any code avaliable that does this - I'm thinking of doing the
same and would appreciate any help!
Greg Cope
> --
> John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
> Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
42 matches
Mail list logo
