| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2
Comments:
<0> how do i delete all mails in queue? with mailq i can see that i have 6881 mails :/
<1> man rm
<0> hehe in the /var/spool/...?
<0> ./var/spool/clientmqueue/
<0> and /var/spool/mqueue
<0> found them all. thnx for your help :P
<2> you're topic is out of date.
<2> 8.14.0 is out.
<2> :)
<2> what should I look for to speed up the speed of the incoming mail? It seems the mailq stays filled and the server isn't loaded that much.
<3> if the mailq is filled with inbound stuff then there are delivery problems
<2> delivery locally or to the destination?
<3> what do the queue entries say?
<2> sending
<2> many will eventually go through. it's averaging about 14 minutes per message right now.
<1> define "averaging 14 minutes per message". Be clear and concise in your answer. Don't hesistate to use actual technical terms if necessary
<2> following the messages... from the time it hits the queue. it takes 14 minutes before any message is delivered.
<1> and what happens meanwhile?
<2> I understand the ones that are deferred, but all the other ones.... their just slow.
<1> sendmail don't let messages sit in the queue usually
<2> I know.
<1> deferred because of what errors?
<2> I was running 8.13.1 and just upgraded to 8.14 and it still has the problem.
<2> connection resets
<1> for a local delivery?
<2> no. when the messages are going out.
<1> Is the problem with incoming mail? (possible answers Yes/No)
<2> yes
<1> then what do you mean by "when the messages are going out"
<2> ok, I see why I thought they were going out. Multi recipients.
<2> so it appears local messages are not getting delivered quickly.
<1> No, sendmail p***es the mail to the delivery agent and the mail is put into the recipient(s) mailbox(es)
<1> That's usually fast
<1> Is it slow when you send an email to another user on the system?
<2> haven't tried. hold on.
<2> takes 3 minutes to deliver locally.
<1> Okay. Can we see the logs?
<2> where do ya want them?
<1> from a web server if possible
<2> ok
<2> http://onehop.com/log.txt
<2> 1000 lines
<1> Which address should I be looking for?
<1> Ah, you're using Mailscanner
<2> just as slow without mailscanner.
<2> I'm wondering if there is something wrong with my sendmail.mc
<1> I cannot debug with mailscanner
<2> maybe an option making is slow.
<1> There is no option to make sendmail slow
<2> I'll turn mailscanner off.
<2> mailscanner is now byp***ed.
<1> new test and show log. It should be a few lines only
<2> ok same site. last 500 lines of the log.
<1> Did you send to renefah?
<2> no.
<2> from support to wajone
<1> Okay
<1> The log shows that it was sent
<1> The user received the email?
<2> 3 minutes later.
<2> without mailscanner it does seem to be going a little faster but not by much.
<1> The log shows immediate delivery
<2> I wonder if it's getting caught up in spam******in
<1> How are you calling spamd?
<2> procmail using spamc
<1> disable spamd and see whether you get theemail faster
<2> I ***ume that is the correct way.
<1> Yes and no:)
<2> yes & no?
<1> You don't us eboth spamd and mailscanner btw
<1> There is not always a correct way. There are several ways to solve a problem with sendmail
<2> I have to because I don't know how to use SA within MS on a per user basis.
<2> so are you saying I don't even need spamd running at all since spamc is being called up as needed?
<1> No, I am saying either user mailscanner or spamd, not both
<1> either use ..
<1> You can use both if you don't mind the "slowdown"
<2> hrm. never had a problem with it. this slowness problem just started yesterday. and to the best of my knowledge, nothing was updated or changed that *I* know of.
<2> I would rarely have more than 3 messages in the queue up until the slowness started. now it gets up to 40-80 at a time.
<1> Anyway it doesn't look like a sendmail problem. Maybe someone else can help
<2> I think I agree. SM is doing it's job.
<2> SA is doing it's job.
<2> that leave MailScanner.
<2> mailq is now empty from 40 pending
<1> and the mal shows up as deferred or queued?
<2> haven't seen any since stopping MS
<2> It's mailscanner.
<2> deeper searching finds that someone upgraded it.
<2> Feb 5 no less.
<2> sorry to bother you.
<1> It's no bother
<2> just for kicks, I think it's time to completely rebuild it all. :)
<2> sub: thanks for the help again. Mailscanner was the problem. Apparently upgrading wasn't enough, the admin had to play with the settings and really fubar'ed it up. All the settings were set to SLOW the server down.
<2> now all messages are being processed under 5 seconds.
<2> 9 if scanned with SA
<1> Now you see why I don't help with mailscanner:)
<2> yes.
<2> the default install of MS for the most part is optimized for speed. some of the things that slow it down is whether or not to batch it a queue it. When set to queue, that's what slows things WAY down.
<2> sub: When this comes us.... lost input channel from [61.149.227.88] to MTA after rcpt .... what exactly does that mean?
<1> you got disconnected during the SMTP conversation
<2> is it a normal thing? I see a lot of it in the logs.
<1> in this particular case yes. There is a 78.3% probability that it was a spammer
<2> spammers we see a lot of.
<2> SA about the only good thing to use to fight against it?
<1> One of the good things
<2> You are obviously a intelligent mail person.... what do you suggest me to look into as far as further combating spam?
<1> Don't think so. I am not that smart. There is no perfect solution for free. You can combine different techniques to "fight" teh problem
<2> well, even if I had to pay it may be worth it.
<1> You can do it for free with a little effort btw
<2> I've done a lot of effort. :)
<1> Find out what is getting through and why. That's easier to solve
<2> I've got MailScanner scanning emails with 4 virus engines and cleaning phishing messages. SA (per user) cleaning spam. And tons of blocked sites in the access.db file. And for the ones I really hate, they are iptabled. :)
<1> You have FOUR virus engines?
<2> Command Antivirus (catches the most), ClamAV, AVG, BitDefender.
<2> I have it scanning incoming and outgoing messages.
<2> current times are all still under 9 seconds.
<1> That's a lot of scanning
<1> is it really worth it?
<2> yeah, but I haven't had the first virus come through my email client. :)
<2> it's interesting to watch the logs. 2 out of 4 will find a virus. sometime 1 out of 4, then sometimes 4 of 4 gets it.
<2> I just wish I could do that with spam. :)
<1> I have one site with no antivirus and I haven't been hit by viruses in ages. No, I do not block on .exe
<2> oh we have about 200 a day hit.
<1> How much mail do you get and how much of it is spam?
<2> we avg about 80000 messages a day. just shy of 50000 are spam.
<1> It's easier to catch viruses. It's a known threat
<1> so the 30,000 get through?
<1> oops
<1> sorry, miscalculated
<1> I mean how much get through?
<1> BTW, you don't receive that much spam
<2> hard to say since we do a per user basis. If I turned off all the protection I get, I run about 1800 messages a day. with the protection, maybe about 20 get through.
<1> for your mailbox?
<2> out of those 20, if it wasn't for the forged headers, they wouldn't get through.
<2> just my mailbox yes.
<1> spam******in should catch forged headers
<1> 20 isn't that bad
<2> if I would have to guess at it, the other users get about 80% filtered.
<2> razor helps
<1> if you are using Spam******in properly, you should be nearer to the 90% mark
<2> and I have found certain rbl's work good as well. others not so good because they kill just about everything.
<2> for SA, I use that rulesdejour (whatever its called).
<2> I have no custom rules. never figured out how to write them.
<1> You are using imap. You can optimize yoru bayes further
<2> only a hand full of users are using imap. the rest are pop3
<2> what's interesting is the scores I see go through. I've seen as high as 202. my cut off is set to 3.0. :)
<1> The cut depends on the rules you have and how badly you hate spam
<2> if it wasn't for the fact I have to answer business emails, my cut off would be -3. :)
<1> 3 would cathc a lot of business mail ( I don't know the scoring average in your setup)
<1> -3 would reject too much mail
<2> 3 works for my setup.
<2> usually above that I start getting more of the spam that has the 1 small image, or the stock quotes that you can't read. It's only like 3 lines of text.
Return to
#sendmail
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#stocks
#sex
#gamedev
socialism in weden
vb6 WSAAsyncSelect
cryonv
#stocks
#winvista
#computers
|
|