Found nn messages in the processing-messages database
glenn.steen at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 11:44:14 IST 2009
2009/4/20 Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com>:
> Julian Field wrote on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:08:05 +0100:
>> No, for everything with Postfix. It will just mean a change in algorithm
>> to produce the 5-digit key, no change in logging, data stored or
>> anything else.
> Julian, I would be grateful if you could provide the direct use of the
> postfix ids as an option. I'm not seeing any reason to use them on my
> setups, they do not repeat over a long time. Where are those setups that
> "need" it? In mailing list postings from 5 years ago? I'm still waiting
> that someone raises his hand and says "yes, it repeats for us at least
Well, then you haven't got a particularly large/lengthy SQL log (like
for MailWatch), have you? If you had, you'd see the problem. Also
depends on fs, of course.
> And I don't see how changing the algorithm for the five-letter-word would
> solve the problem with the processing database.
If you go from totally random to deterministic/file, you'd still get
the needed uniqueness as well as the same key for the same queue file
(in the processing DB)... Which seems to be the problem needing to be
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
More information about the MailScanner