Re: [Mailman-Developers] Uncaught bounce notification ..
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:05:48 +0100 Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
"J" == J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> on Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:05:45 -0500 writes:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:52:07 +0100 Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
My problem is that I get about 50 "Uncaught bounce notification"s per day, only few of which are spam/virus related.
Turn on VERP for a few days.
- we (currenly must) use sendmail and that doesn't seem to support VERPing -- or at least we haven't found docu on that
Mailman's VERP supports don't require VERP support in the MTA, merely support for plus addressing.
- VERP will probably cost quite a bit of CPU/memory/disk-IO resources on the mail servert. Currently that server almost constantly runs on load 2.5 -- 3 (because of anti-virus / anti-spam / mailman ..)
The added overhead is increased delivery expense in the form of more disk IO, both for the initial delivery from Mailman, and the final delivery to the target MX. The other overheads are fairly minimal given minor MTA tuning.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 13:40, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:05:48 +0100 Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
- VERP will probably cost quite a bit of CPU/memory/disk-IO resources on the mail servert. Currently that server almost constantly runs on load 2.5 -- 3 (because of anti-virus / anti-spam / mailman ..)
The added overhead is increased delivery expense in the form of more disk IO, both for the initial delivery from Mailman, and the final delivery to the target MX. The other overheads are fairly minimal given minor MTA tuning.
Virus/Spam scanning should not be done for mail injection from mailman - its already been scanned when it came through the MTA on the way into mailman, so a second scan is completely superfluous and downright silly when you have expanded the original incoming message into a number of outgoing ones (even without VERP).
Nigel.-- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
participants (2)
-
J C Lawrence -
Nigel Metheringham