mqueue.in just gets bigger - no delivery?

[Brett Charbeneau]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Res wrote:

R> Hi Brett,
R> 
R> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Brett Charbeneau wrote:
R> 
R> > Config: calling custom init function MailWatchLogging
R> 
R> Try disable this above option

	Hmm. This seems to be in MailScanner.conf as 

Always Looked Up Last =

	?
	It was "&MailWatchLogging" but I've set it to "no"
	No change, I'm afraid.


R> > 	I've got "Max Children = 5":
R> > 
R> > 29629 ?        SNs    0:00 MailScanner: master waiting for children,
R> > sleeping
R> > 29630 ?        SN     0:29 MailScanner: checking with SpamAssassin
R> > 29656 ?        SN     0:29 MailScanner: virus scanning
R> > 29681 ?        SN     0:27 MailScanner: checking with SpamAssassin
R> > 29694 ?        SN     0:28 MailScanner: checking with SpamAssassin
R> > 29717 ?        SN     0:28 MailScanner: virus scanning
R> > 29976 ?        DN     0:00 MailScanner: checking with SpamAssassin
R> > 29993 ?        RN     0:07 MailScanner: checking with SpamAssassin
R> > 30052 ?        RN     0:03 MailScanner: checking with SpamAssassin
R> > 30060 ?        DNs    0:00 MailScanner: virus scanning
R> > 30061 ?        DNs    0:00 MailScanner: virus scanning
R> 
R> 
R> This seems wrong... if you only have max kids 5, Did you do any upgrade
R> in your fixing of the box?

	I *did* try to upgrade sendmail, but there's an upstream problem with 
the package, so I was able to downgrade back.
	I let apt-get (this is in Debian) deal with the binaries, but I did 
check the conf files and they all reverted.

R> In an earlier post you showed us with several....
R> 	MailScanner: starting children
R> you showed us:
R> > root 29629 1 0 10:01 ? 00:00:00 MailScanner: starting children
R> > root 29630 29629 26 10:01 ? 00:00:08 MailScanner: starting children
R> > root 29656 29629 28 10:01 ? 00:00:06 MailScanner: starting children
R> > root 29681 29629 22 10:01 ? 00:00:02 MailScanner: starting children
R> 
R> This looks wrong....
R> 
R> You should only see 1 of these once all kids have started, in starting the
R> kids you will see two of them, the 1 perm one and the kid starting up, once
R> the kid has started you should see:
R> 	MailScanner: waiting for messages
R> 
R> It looks like something is running more than one copy and it is not starting
R> properly.
R> 
R> You indicated tmp was corrupted, silly question but does /tmp still have
R> permisions of 1777 ?

	Yepper:

drwxrwxrwt    7 root root  2048 Aug 31 09:20 tmp

	and I'm mounting this as a separate partition in fstab like so:

/dev/sda3       /tmp            ext3    defaults        0       2

R> Ive done rip out replacements similar to this as im sure most others have and
R> never had any hiccups like this.

	I'm seriously considering going this route and effectively starting over 
with the MS install.

R> If you set the scan messages to off so MailScanner essentially is just a
R> relay only, does mail flow again?

	Yes - sure does. 
	Just no scanning.

R> Check Sendmail Dir perms:
R> drwxrwx---   2 smmsp  smmsp  4096 2006-08-31 08:45 clientmqueue/
R> drwxr-xr-x   2 root   root   4096 2006-08-31 08:45 mqueue/
R> drwxr-x---   2 root   bin    4096 2006-08-31 08:45 mqueue.in/


	Okay, now this should be interesting.
	Here's what I got:

drwxr-s---   2 smmta smmsp 28672 Aug 31 09:22 mqueue
drwxrws---   2 smmsp smmsp  4096 Aug 31 09:16 mqueue-client
drwxr-x---   2 root  bin   61440 Aug 31 09:22 mqueue.in

	Carl Andrews was kind enough to refer me to a page specific to (the 
previous version of) Debian

http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi-bin/faq?_highlightWords=debian&file=226

	which conflicts with

http://www.mailscanner.info/sendmail.html

	Since the former is of my distro, I went ahead and changed it to what 
"Michiel" of the former site suggests:

drwxr-s---   2 smmta smmsp 28672 Aug 31 09:26 mqueue
drwxrws---   2 smmsp smmsp  4096 Aug 31 09:16 mqueue-client
drwxr-s---   2 smmta smmsp 61440 Aug 31 09:29 mqueue.in

	I'll run this for a while and report back to the list.


R> I also strongly suggest that you should upgrade,  4.51 is rather old
R> any many of us may be trying to offer suggestions based on later releases.
R> (like my display info above, cant recall when that was changed)

	Debian *is* quite conservative on what it considers "stable". For the 
most part I agree with them, but I should probably consider installing MS from a 
tarball instead...

-- 
********************************************************************
Brett Charbeneau
Network Administrator
Williamsburg Regional Library
7770 Croaker Road
Williamsburg, VA 23188-7064
(757)259-4044          www.wrl.org
(757)259-4079 (fax)    brett at wrl.org
********************************************************************