Massive queue buildup

[Scott Silva]

Glenn Steen spake the following on 11/15/2006 12:56 AM:
> On 15/11/06, Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Chandler, Jay wrote:
>>
>> > ov 14 20:07:42 brewer MailScanner[37903]: Batch (30 messages) processed
>> > in 328.23 seconds
>> > Nov 14 20:07:51 brewer MailScanner[38335]: Batch (30 messages)
>> processed
>> > in 670.92 seconds
>> > Nov 14 20:08:37 brewer MailScanner[38125]: Batch (30 messages)
>> processed
>> > in 643.34 seconds
>> >
>> > That's not good.
>> >
>>
>> No :)
> Have to agree here. More below.
> 
>> If you nee dit sorted , disable spam assassin, leave spam checks on, but
>> disable SA, you'll find it will clear the queue in no time.
> Might not be the culprit after all. Well, it still might bet....:-)
> 
>> Also do you RBL in MS or MTA? MTA is far better
> In one of Jays earlier responses (to Brent Addis) he mentioned doing
> 3-4 BLs in MS, which he found to be "nothing insane". Well, he just
> might be wrong, taken that those would _serialize_, much like most
> MTAs but unlike SA, and with some poor choices made on which lists to
> check in MS... Voila, bad performance here we come:-). At least a
> theory worth exploring;-).
> As you all know, the MTA (for early rejection) or SA (for
> parallellism) is the place to do this (and possibly one or two in
> MS...:-).
> 
I have to agree totally. BL's in mailscanner will be the slowest.
I just ran across Net-DNSBL-MultiDaemon on CPAN, and I am thinking about
experimenting with it. You can add it as a zone in bind and make one lookup.
It seems to even drop BLs that timeout or get slow for a short period of time.
http://search.cpan.org/~miker/Net-DNSBL-MultiDaemon-0.17/MultiDaemon.pm
I just have to think out a plan to give it a workout.

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!