Building an MS-SA box

[MW Mike Weiner (5028)]

I will keep that in mind, thank you Jeff. I am not a big fan of tinydns, if
am I going to have to run dns, then I will just opt for running bind9 and
get it over with. I have not as yet seen too much of a lookup bottleneck,
but I understand what you are saying and have seen that in other instances
where we've used nscd. What I really want to get working is pipelining
within sendmail, so instead of opening a connection, and doing the work,
then closing the connection, why not create a "persistent" connection over
which I pipeline the mail to the DS host. Example, tho the current
implementation of this spambox would not make for a great candidate for
this, but we run mailers in our farm where we send boat loads of emails to a
variety of recipients from the web servers using an Ironport mailer device
as the focal point before blasting it to the world. Now, being able to
pipeline there would be a nice help.

Anyway, thanks to all who have responded. The spambox is working well, other
than clamav which still doesn't seem to be working as nothing ever gets
"tagged" a containing a virus or exploit. Not sure if this is related to my
delivery rules as being "store deliver" or not, cause I can see clamscan
doing its work on the temp working directory and signs of life in logs, etc.
Can any one confirm that a delivery option of "store deliver" would
essentially BREAK clamav?

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff A. Earickson [mailto:jaearick at COLBY.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:41 AM
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Building an MS-SA box

IMHO, you are better off running a cache/slave DNS like bind or tinydns.  On
Solaris we have found that nscd can be a bottleneck, not a help.  When we
moved our web service (apache) from HP to Solaris, we were getting really
poor response until we turned off nscd.  I have it turned off on all of my
Sun boxes, including my MailScanner box.  Others may have different insight
on nscd.

Jeff Earickson
Colby College

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Ugo Bellavance wrote:

> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:35:59 -0500
> From: Ugo Bellavance <ugob at CAMO-ROUTE.COM>
> Reply-To: MailScanner mailing list <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Building an MS-SA box
>
> >
> >> 2) configure a caching nameserver on the MS box.
> >
> >DEFINITELY!! currently running nscd-2.3.2-27.9.7 (aint redhat's
> >latest versioning crazy?)
> >
>
> nscd?
>
> Is is better than to use the package named "caching nameserver"?
>
> I don't need to cache other services.
>
> Thanks,
>