Postfix vs MailScanner : Slow Incoming Queue
gerard at seibercom.net
Sat Nov 10 14:42:35 GMT 2007
On Saturday November 10, 2007 at 05:45:33 (AM) Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 09/11/2007, Gerard Seibert <gerard at seibercom.net> wrote:
> > On Friday November 09, 2007 at 03:58:46 (AM) Glenn Steen wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> > > Ah. Great that you found it (all MTA, and OT, but still.... One could
> > > well think the ones over at the PF list would've been able to see
> > > this:-):-)... Anyway... I do think that evere other second is a bit
> > > often, you could try every 10 or 15 seconds or similar... Would mean
> > > approximately 25 deliveries in every chunk. But if the system doesn't
> > > suffer too much from the queue scans... well, every other second it
> > > is:-).
> > OK, I don't want to start a war here; however, I saw "R Wahyudi
> > <rwahyudi at gmail.com>" original post on the Postfix forum. I did not see a
> > copy of his 'postconf -n' output. Without that information it would have been
> > virtually impossible for anyone to have accurately diagnosed his problem.
> As you know Gerard, I'm not the contentious type;-). No wars in sight...
> You are quite right, Rianto could have been as detailed as he (or is
> that a female name?) eventually was here, but that is not my point...
> All I say is that they could have asked for relevant information (not
> just the "use of MailScanner disqualifies you from ever getting our
> help" line).
> As you did here.
> I don't think there is any argument here, is there?
None at all. However, users of the Postfix forum know that in order to receive
suitable assistance they are required to post the output of 'postconf -n' as
well as their system configuration and any unaltered log files that relate to
their problem. Failure to do that just wastes everyone's time.
By the way, there is some excelent information regarding gmgr located at:
In any case, Victor might just have been having a bad day. It happens to all
of us at one time or another.
> > IMHO, he would be well served to post that information, as well as detailed
> > information regarding his network on the Postfix forum so that his problem
> > could be properly analysed. Altering the default settings as much as he
> > apparently has done does not seem correct.
> Yes,I think it a bit ... extreme... too. But with the figures of
> incoming mail s/he cites, if the qmgr really only wakeup every five
> minutes... that *will* land him/her with a seemingly slow delivery,
> there is no argumenting with that. On the other hand, I'm sure one
> could try affect the operation of the qmgr other ways that might get
> the same effect, or even some MailScanner setting.
> I'm very busy/tired ATM, so haven't spent even close to enough time
> looking at this problem ... Perhaps shouldn't be posting on the list
> at all... Sigh - Where did things like "free time" and "relaxation"
More information about the MailScanner