Betr.: Re: Mailscanner performance monitoring ?

[Joolee]

As far as I know, by default Exchange servers wil accapt all addresses for
their domain so they can bounce a nice cryptic message back to the sender.


On 7 May 2013 12:12, Jonas Akrouh Larsen <jonas at vrt.dk> wrote:

> Arjan:
>
> If you don't already, you should do what exim calls callouts. It basically
> checks to see if you backend/receiving server will accept the recipient
> address.
>
> And if not the mailscanner box doesn't accept the mail and its rejected
> before any av or antispam checks. This saves huge amounts of processing.
> Also it doesn't require anything like ldap or dayli syncs, only smtp.
>
> I'm not sure what postfix and sendmail calls it, but I'm sure they have
> something similar
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen / Best regards
>
> Jonas Akrouh Larsen
>
> TechBiz ApS
> Laplandsgade 4, 2. sal
> 2300 København S
>
> Office: 7020 0979
> Direct: 3336 9974
> Mobile: 5120 1096
> Fax:    7020 0978
> Web: www.techbiz.dk
>
>
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:
> mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] På vegne af Arjan Melein
> Sendt: 6. maj 2013 10:08
> Til: MailScanner discussion
> Emne: Betr.: Re: Mailscanner performance monitoring ?
>
> Thanks for this document Phil, I have mine set up in almost the same way
> so that's always reassuring:-)
>
> As to answer everyone else (thanks those who responded) and not send a
> mail for each, shortly after sending my original mail I noticed the primary
> (local) dns server and backup (other, older server) dns were switched
> around in /etc/resolv.conf.. so it was using the backup for all lookups
> instead of the local machine.
> So far it has not bogged down again so I'm guessing that was it.
>
> I was already using a ramdisk (tmpfs) for the work dir which gave me a
> huge improvement when I started using it in the past.  LDAP would be too
> complex and would increase processing time too much as I am hosting for
> multiple sites that have their own directory and mail-server.
> I'd have to do something like pull all e-mail addresses from each site on
> a daily basis and cache them locally to check against.
>
> -
> Arjan
>
> >>> Op 2-5-2013 om 7:47 is door Phil Barnett <philb at philb.us> geschreven:
> > I do quite a few things for processing speed. One of the important
> > ones is to create a ramdisk where you unpack your mail for scanning.
> > My recipe is in the following document. It has been updated over the
> > years since I created it in 2007.
> >
> > http://leap-cf.org/presentations/MailScanner/MailScanner.odt
> >
>
>
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
>
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
>
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20130507/bdaa9a7c/attachment.html