Found nn messages in the processing-messages database
MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Mon Apr 20 12:25:12 IST 2009
Thanks Glenn, you took the words right out of my mouth.
4.76-13 will be out in 2 minutes.
On 20/04/2009 11:44, Glenn Steen wrote:
> 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
Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
Need help customising MailScanner?
Need help fixing or optimising your systems?
Need help getting you started solving new requirements from your boss?
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the MailScanner