Postfix vs MailScanner : Slow Incoming Queue
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Sat Nov 10 15:59:29 GMT 2007
On 10/11/2007, Gerard Seibert <gerard at seibercom.net> wrote:
> 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.
Quite true, and in that they're not any different than this list...
Well, they're a bit more adamant, that is true:-):-)
> By the way, there is some excelent information regarding gmgr located at:
Yep. Nothing beats RTM:-). Well, maybe RTM&Understanding it too:-)
> In any case, Victor might just have been having a bad day. It happens to all
> of us at one time or another.
If Victor is responsible (as I suspect) for the MSCI lists
setup/management ... then he has had more than one bad day:-):-D.
Hackish and not sensitive to "user unknown" rejections ... Sigh. Then
again, the hack seems to be effective in other ways, so it's not all
> > > 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"
> > go?:-)
> > Cheers
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner