Thread: List response time...
Hi All, Looking at my message about the bug webpage and some other posts, I see that it was delayed for about 2h and a half. Some of the post were delayed for days... Why is that? Looks like the list has problems of some sort which cause these irregular delays. Just an annoying observation. S.
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:59, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > Looking at my message about the bug webpage and > some other posts, I see that it was delayed for > about 2h and a half. Some of the post were > delayed for days... Why is that? Looks like > the list has problems of some sort which cause > these irregular delays. Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). Newsgroups scale a little better, but Usenet propagation delay was a problem even when full feeds were below 100MB per day. Actually, Usenet propagation is better now than then, now that the majority of sites aren't uucp and fed batched with C-News. (or BNews, even....). Usenet propagation delays used to be measured in days and sometimes weeks. To get a message in two days was great time! But I can remember when Usenet propagation delays were how you judged EXPIRE times and newsspool size. And I also remember nasty tricks used when servers that didn't respect 'distribution:' were hit with 'expires:' headers with values below the mean propagation delay.....and I can recall getting CANCELS for postings two days before the posting to be canceled came trickling in.... We're still not as bad as BugTraq, though. Not only is the message delayed two to three days, other people will have already replied to it, and discussion will have been closed off before I ever get a chance to say anything. Well, maybe that's a good thing. :-) I guess this IS one of the few advantages of having to use reply-all on this list.... Although then the discussion has moved on before the general list membership has had a chance to read most of the recent replies.... The best thing to do is simply to expect propagation delay. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> The best thing to do is simply to expect propagation delay.
Actually, I just sent a gripe off to Marc about this. I've been
noticing large and variable propagation delay for a few months now,
but I just today realized that the problem is entirely local to hub.org.
For example, look at the headers on your message:
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id
f7LJKpY10196for<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:20:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with SMTP
idf7LJKpP46374;Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:20:52 -0400 (EDT)(envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M12441@postgresql.org)
Received: from www.wgcr.org (www.wgcr.org [206.74.232.194])by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id
f7LHxnP15711for<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:59:49 -0400 (EDT)(envelope-from
lamar.owen@wgcr.org)
Received: from lowen.wgcr.org (IDENT:lowen@[10.1.2.3])by www.wgcr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/WGCR) with SMTP id NAA25357;Tue, 21
Aug2001 13:59:40 -0400
All the delay seems to be in transferring the message from
postgresql.org to webmail.postgresql.org ... which are the same
machine, or at least the same IP address. What's up with that?
regards, tom lane
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). Note that the postgresql.org mail server is still running sendmail. In my personal experience with sources.redhat.com, qmail is a much better choice to handle large mailing lists. When we switched from sendmail to qmail, mailing list delays dropped from hours, or sometimes even days, to seconds. Ian
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > All the delay seems to be in transferring the message from > postgresql.org to webmail.postgresql.org ... which are the same > machine, or at least the same IP address. What's up with that? You are seeing sendmail's poorly designed queuing behaviour in action. sendmail limits itself by outgoing messages, rather than outgoing deliveries. This causes one slow delivery to hold up many fast deliveries. Ian
On 21 Aug 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). > > Note that the postgresql.org mail server is still running sendmail. > In my personal experience with sources.redhat.com, qmail is a much > better choice to handle large mailing lists. When we switched from > sendmail to qmail, mailing list delays dropped from hours, or > sometimes even days, to seconds. ooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... I've been raggin on Marc on that one for well over a year, maybe two.. I started using qmail when it was still in .7something beta and never looked back. The folks at Security Focus have moved all of the lists to ezmlm (part of qmail) and have had nothing but success... But don't tell Marc. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
I've had great luck with Postfix as well. -Mitch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <ian@airs.com> To: "Lamar Owen" <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Cc: "Serguei Mokhov" <sa_mokho@alcor.concordia.ca>; "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:24 PM Subject: [HACKERS] Re: List response time... > Note that the postgresql.org mail server is still running sendmail. > In my personal experience with sources.redhat.com, qmail is a much > better choice to handle large mailing lists. When we switched from > sendmail to qmail, mailing list delays dropped from hours, or > sometimes even days, to seconds. > > Ian > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl >
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:59, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > > Looking at my message about the bug webpage and > > some other posts, I see that it was delayed for > > about 2h and a half. Some of the post were > > delayed for days... Why is that? Looks like > > the list has problems of some sort which cause > > these irregular delays. > > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). Newsgroups Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... .. as far as server load is concerned, causing several hour delay, we're just about to put online a dual processor server that has been donated to the project ... its first task is going to be mailing list distribution and a open news server for the newsgroups.
Huh? Two different machines altogether ... but, I do have work to do once the new server goes online ... > nslookup postgresql.org Server: localhost.hub.org Address: 127.0.0.1 Name: postgresql.org Address: 216.126.84.28 > nslookup webmail.postgresql.org Server: localhost.hub.org Address: 127.0.0.1 Name: mail.postgresql.org Address: 216.126.85.28 Aliases: webmail.postgresql.org On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > The best thing to do is simply to expect propagation delay. > > Actually, I just sent a gripe off to Marc about this. I've been > noticing large and variable propagation delay for a few months now, > but I just today realized that the problem is entirely local to hub.org. > For example, look at the headers on your message: > > Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) > by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7LJKpY10196 > for <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:20:51 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) > by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with SMTP id f7LJKpP46374; > Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:20:52 -0400 (EDT) > (envelope-from pgsql-hackers-owner+M12441@postgresql.org) > Received: from www.wgcr.org (www.wgcr.org [206.74.232.194]) > by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7LHxnP15711 > for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:59:49 -0400 (EDT) > (envelope-from lamar.owen@wgcr.org) > Received: from lowen.wgcr.org (IDENT:lowen@[10.1.2.3]) > by www.wgcr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/WGCR) with SMTP id NAA25357; > Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:59:40 -0400 > > All the delay seems to be in transferring the message from > postgresql.org to webmail.postgresql.org ... which are the same > machine, or at least the same IP address. What's up with that? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl >
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Huh? Two different machines altogether ...
Hmm. Maybe the problem is this:
$ nslookup -q=mx postgresql.org
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
postgresql.org preference = 0, mail exchanger = mail.postgresql.org
postgresql.org preference = 20, mail exchanger = mail1.hub.org
postgresql.org preference = 20, mail exchanger = mailserv.hub.org
Authoritative answers can be found from:
postgresql.org nameserver = NS.TRENDS.CA
postgresql.org nameserver = NS.hub.org
mail.postgresql.org internet address = 216.126.85.28
mail1.hub.org internet address = 216.126.85.1
mailserv.hub.org internet address = 216.126.84.253
NS.TRENDS.CA internet address = 209.47.148.2
NS.hub.org internet address = 216.126.84.1
From out here, the primary mail acceptor for 'postgresql.org' shows
as mail.postgresql.org = 216.126.85.28. Should we be preferring
216.126.84.28 instead? It sure looks like there's an unnecessary
hop happening inside hub.org.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:59, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > > > Looking at my message about the bug webpage and > > > some other posts, I see that it was delayed for > > > about 2h and a half. Some of the post were > > > delayed for days... Why is that? Looks like > > > the list has problems of some sort which cause > > > these irregular delays. > > > > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). Newsgroups > > Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl > that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... > > .. as far as server load is concerned, causing several hour delay, we're > just about to put online a dual processor server that has been donated to > the project ... its first task is going to be mailing list distribution > and a open news server for the newsgroups. Can I put qmail on it first? Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Nope, but thanks for the offer ;) On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:59, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > > > > Looking at my message about the bug webpage and > > > > some other posts, I see that it was delayed for > > > > about 2h and a half. Some of the post were > > > > delayed for days... Why is that? Looks like > > > > the list has problems of some sort which cause > > > > these irregular delays. > > > > > > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > > > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > > > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). Newsgroups > > > > Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl > > that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... > > > > .. as far as server load is concerned, causing several hour delay, we're > > just about to put online a dual processor server that has been donated to > > the project ... its first task is going to be mailing list distribution > > and a open news server for the newsgroups. > > Can I put qmail on it first? > > Vince. > -- > ========================================================================== > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net > 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > ========================================================================== > > > >
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Nope, but thanks for the offer ;) Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze????? You won't be sorry or disappointed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:59, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > > > > > Looking at my message about the bug webpage and > > > > > some other posts, I see that it was delayed for > > > > > about 2h and a half. Some of the post were > > > > > delayed for days... Why is that? Looks like > > > > > the list has problems of some sort which cause > > > > > these irregular delays. > > > > > > > > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > > > > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > > > > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). Newsgroups > > > > > > Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl > > > that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... > > > > > > .. as far as server load is concerned, causing several hour delay, we're > > > just about to put online a dual processor server that has been donated to > > > the project ... its first task is going to be mailing list distribution > > > and a open news server for the newsgroups. > > > > Can I put qmail on it first? > > > > Vince. > > -- > > ========================================================================== > > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net > > 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking > > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > > ========================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). > > Note that the postgresql.org mail server is still running sendmail. > In my personal experience with sources.redhat.com, qmail is a much > better choice to handle large mailing lists. When we switched from > sendmail to qmail, mailing list delays dropped from hours, or > sometimes even days, to seconds. The MTA used for various redhat.com mailing lists is postfix (and mailman as listmanager) -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
If it was a sendmail issue, by all means, but it isn't so no :) On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > Nope, but thanks for the offer ;) > > Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze????? > > You won't be sorry or disappointed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 21 August 2001 12:59, Serguei Mokhov wrote: > > > > > > Looking at my message about the bug webpage and > > > > > > some other posts, I see that it was delayed for > > > > > > about 2h and a half. Some of the post were > > > > > > delayed for days... Why is that? Looks like > > > > > > the list has problems of some sort which cause > > > > > > these irregular delays. > > > > > > > > > > Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > > > > > delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > > > > > list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). Newsgroups > > > > > > > > Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl > > > > that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... > > > > > > > > .. as far as server load is concerned, causing several hour delay, we're > > > > just about to put online a dual processor server that has been donated to > > > > the project ... its first task is going to be mailing list distribution > > > > and a open news server for the newsgroups. > > > > > > Can I put qmail on it first? > > > > > > Vince. > > > -- > > > ========================================================================== > > > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net > > > 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking > > > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > > > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > > > ========================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ========================================================================== > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net > 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > ========================================================================== > > > >
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > If it was a sendmail issue, by all means, but it isn't so no :) Both qmail and postfix radically outperform sendmail for large mailing list delivery on identical hardware. It seems strange to me to say that there is no sendmail issue when sendmail itself is the issue. The queuing structure sendmail uses is simply wrong when a single message has many recipients. I've run moderately serious (1000 users, dozens of messages per day) mailing lists using both sendmail and qmail, and there really is no comparison. Ian
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 19:45, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl > that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... I have been getting delayed duplicates from people (ie, Tom Lane) addressed to only the hackers list (which I know he's subscribed to). Up to a week after reading it once already. My mail spool filesystem has severl GB of free space, too. Unless my sendmail installation is doing funny things. :-) -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2001 19:45, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl
>> that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ...
> I have been getting delayed duplicates from people (ie, Tom Lane) addressed
> to only the hackers list (which I know he's subscribed to).
The approval delay isn't only for people who are not subscribed. Marc
also has a number of filters in there that are intended to shunt off
administrivia (ie, people who send uns*bscribe commands to the whole
list). This is not a bad idea, but unfortunately, his filter patterns
are WAY too loose IMHO. I've had posts delayed because of references
to c*ncel, s*b-SELECT, and some other words that I could hardly even
see the connection to administrivia requests.
Hoping that this post gets through without being delayed ;-)
regards, tom lane
> > Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl > > that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... > > I have been getting delayed duplicates from people (ie, Tom Lane) addressed > to only the hackers list (which I know he's subscribed to). Up to a week > after reading it once already. > I can confirm this also. I have seen delayed (up to several days later) duplicates of emails I have already received.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this >>delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the >>list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). >> > >Note that the postgresql.org mail server is still running sendmail. >In my personal experience with sources.redhat.com, qmail is a much >better choice to handle large mailing lists. When we switched from >sendmail to qmail, mailing list delays dropped from hours, or >sometimes even days, to seconds. > It's all in the configuration. I slam mails around dozens of machines in seconds using sendmail and I process a lot of mail. David
> > >All the delay seems to be in transferring the message from >postgresql.org to webmail.postgresql.org ... which are the same >machine, or at least the same IP address. What's up with that? > Looks like sendmail? Change your queue runs to be more aggressive. I have an mc file on http://blue-labs.org/clue/bluelabs.mc that has some aggressive queue definitions. David
> > >You are seeing sendmail's poorly designed queuing behaviour in action. >sendmail limits itself by outgoing messages, rather than outgoing >deliveries. This causes one slow delivery to hold up many fast >deliveries. > Again, all in the configuration....rinse, repeat. Simply change your queue priority. David
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >Both qmail and postfix radically outperform sendmail for large mailing >list delivery on identical hardware. It seems strange to me to say >that there is no sendmail issue when sendmail itself is the issue. >The queuing structure sendmail uses is simply wrong when a single >message has many recipients. I've run moderately serious (1000 users, >dozens of messages per day) mailing lists using both sendmail and >qmail, and there really is no comparison. > Ian, please It's in the configuration. I run much more than the above and have no issues at all. -d
Vince Vielhaber wrote: >ooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... I've been raggin on >Marc on that one for well over a year, maybe two.. I started using >qmail when it was still in .7something beta and never looked back. The >folks at Security Focus have moved all of the lists to ezmlm (part of >qmail) and have had nothing but success... But don't tell Marc. > And ezlm is -ever- so quick to tell you your mail is bouncing when your link goes down for a few hours or is sporadic. I know of several others that simply send you the emails that are in queue. -d
David Ford wrote: > > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > >>Mailing lists don't scale well to large numbers of subscribers. I see this > >>delay constantly,on multiple lists. The bigger the list gets, the slower the > >>list gets (and the more loaded the server gets, right Marc? :-)). > >> > > > >Note that the postgresql.org mail server is still running sendmail. > >In my personal experience with sources.redhat.com, qmail is a much > >better choice to handle large mailing lists. When we switched from > >sendmail to qmail, mailing list delays dropped from hours, or > >sometimes even days, to seconds. > > > > It's all in the configuration. I slam mails around dozens of machines > in seconds using sendmail and I process a lot of mail. Not only configuration. A friend of mine upgraded a computer that was unable to handle the mail feed from P200 to PIII 800 going from sendmail to qmail at the same time. The load average dropped from "allways very busy" to 0.02. It is possible that it is mainly from better conf and faster processor but then I'd claim that qmail is easier to configure for big load. ---------------- Hannu
> It's in the configuration. I run much more than the above and have no > issues at all. Yeah, some people shouldn't have root even if they own the machine.
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, David Ford wrote: > It's all in the configuration. I slam mails around dozens of machines > in seconds using sendmail and I process a lot of mail. So have you patched for the latest of the many sendmail root exploits? Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo atPop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber wrote: >On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, David Ford wrote: > >>It's all in the configuration. I slam mails around dozens of machines >>in seconds using sendmail and I process a lot of mail. >> > >So have you patched for the latest of the many sendmail root exploits? > >Vince. > I keep my systems up to latest and greatest that passes the lab. Currently 8.12.0b19. Since I keep things up to date andread the documentation... I tend to avoid most security problems. Do keep in mind that most of the latest issues are symbiotic problems due to issues found in LK capabilities. -d
David Ford <david@blue-labs.org> writes: > >ooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... I've been raggin on > >Marc on that one for well over a year, maybe two.. I started using > >qmail when it was still in .7something beta and never looked back. The > >folks at Security Focus have moved all of the lists to ezmlm (part of > >qmail) and have had nothing but success... But don't tell Marc. > > > > And ezlm is -ever- so quick to tell you your mail is bouncing when > your link goes down for a few hours or is sporadic. I know of several > others that simply send you the emails that are in queue. I don't know what you are referring to here. ezmlm simply handles bounces generated by the MTA. qmail does not bounce mail merely because a link goes down for a few hours or is sporadic. There is an issue here which you may be referring to: vanilla ezmlm does not handle temporary failure DSN notices very well--it treats them as bounces. This is easily fixable, and in fact I believe that ezmlm+idx (which is what most people use) does handle them correctly by default. Ian
speedboy <speedboy@nomicrosoft.org> writes: > > It's in the configuration. I run much more than the above and have no > > issues at all. > > Yeah, some people shouldn't have root even if they own the machine. Since I was the original poster I'm going to take minor umbrage. I've been writing and distributing free software for over ten years, and my work can be found in every Linux and *BSD distribution. What have you done for the world lately? I also do know how to configure sendmail, another thing I did for over ten years until I switched to qmail in 1998. I will have to respectfully disagree with David Ford, with the proviso that it is certainly possible that recent sendmail releases have better queuing behaviour. David, have you ever tried qmail or postfix? Why not? Ian
Hey guys, Can you move this thread elsewhere? It's EXTREMELY off topic now. :( Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > David Ford <david@blue-labs.org> writes: > > > >ooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... I've been raggin on > > >Marc on that one for well over a year, maybe two.. I started using > > >qmail when it was still in .7something beta and never looked back. The > > >folks at Security Focus have moved all of the lists to ezmlm (part of > > >qmail) and have had nothing but success... But don't tell Marc. > > > > > > > And ezlm is -ever- so quick to tell you your mail is bouncing when > > your link goes down for a few hours or is sporadic. I know of several > > others that simply send you the emails that are in queue. > > I don't know what you are referring to here. ezmlm simply handles > bounces generated by the MTA. qmail does not bounce mail merely > because a link goes down for a few hours or is sporadic. > > There is an issue here which you may be referring to: vanilla ezmlm > does not handle temporary failure DSN notices very well--it treats > them as bounces. This is easily fixable, and in fact I believe that > ezmlm+idx (which is what most people use) does handle them correctly > by default. > > Ian > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Marc wrote: > Actually, the 'multi-day' delay is generally related to posts from ppl > that aren't subscribed to the lists that I have to approve manually ... Is there a quick(er) way to 'subscribe, set nomail' on all the mailing lists that are mirrored to news.postgresql.org? I prefer to read/post through the news server and I've had to subscribe manually to most lists. Cheers, Colin