|
Grex > Helpers > #130: Grex System Problems - Winter 2003/2004 |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 384 responses total. |
willcome
|
|
response 96 of 384:
| 
Jan 6 22:25 UTC 2004 |
lol
|
cross
|
|
response 97 of 384:
|
Jan 6 23:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 98 of 384:
|
Jan 7 00:10 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:95: An 'outbox' (or similar structure) is necessary for any mail
client that has an offline mode. Where else would you queue up sent
messages that can't be transmitted yet?
Re resp:97: I think a better argument, in Grex's case, is there's no
convenient way to back up the mail spool often enough to matter. People
aren't really *supposed* to let old mail linger there anyway, so any
data in the mail spool ought to be transient. It'd be like backing up /tmp.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 99 of 384:
|
Jan 7 01:04 UTC 2004 |
Re 97> Eh, no biggie. Just this person who sent me long emails and said I was
second on his list to marry (yeah, I was flattered :P). Petered off when he
said he couldn't continue corresponding if I didn't answer. I'm not
complaining. :)
|
naftee
|
|
response 100 of 384:
|
Jan 7 03:24 UTC 2004 |
re 98 Ahh, I see.
|
cross
|
|
response 101 of 384:
|
Jan 7 05:22 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 102 of 384:
|
Jan 7 06:45 UTC 2004 |
re #101:
> The legal argument was the best I heard
> for keeping it seperate, but like I said, I don't buy it.
You might really be surprised how time consuming it can be satisfying
a subpoena, summons to produce records, or other type of court process.
> The argument then shifts to one of space and quotas, but on
> nextgrex we'll be using normal UFS quotas anyway, which would negate
> that problem for the most part. Then the argument shifts to not
> wanting to use Unix quotas for mail, since the mail still has to
> be transfered to grex and bounced; it can't just be rejected during
> the SMTP transaction. However, looking at the logs, one sees that
> on any given day, only 5% of the mail grex deals with is rejected
> due to the target mailbox being over quota. It doesn't strike me
> as worth it to augment the SMTP server with code to deal with quotas
> just to save on 5% of the mail we go through in one day (particularly
> given the amount of effort that goes into maintaining the result!).
Among its many other virtues, the postfix MTA has a very simple-to-use
feature to limit mailbox size (it's called something painfully obvious
like inbox_size_limit or something like that..) Are we sticking with
sendmail on NextGrex or could we move to something just as capable but
far easier to manage?
|
cross
|
|
response 103 of 384:
|
Jan 7 06:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 104 of 384:
|
Jan 7 07:46 UTC 2004 |
No subpoena ever written can get blood from a stone: You cannot produce
what you do not have. If you don't back up the mail spool, you don't have
back ups of the mail spool to produce.
|
davel
|
|
response 105 of 384:
|
Jan 7 13:37 UTC 2004 |
Unless the mail software really does enforce mail quotas, we really don't want
mail files in the users' space. Because someone sends me spam, I've exceeded
my disk quota?
|
janc
|
|
response 106 of 384:
|
Jan 7 15:16 UTC 2004 |
I'm not sure, but I think that /newdum is the script that is used to do
backups on Grex. It does not appear to back up the mail spool. It also
does not appear to back up /s, which is where my home directory is.
|
cross
|
|
response 107 of 384:
|
Jan 7 17:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 108 of 384:
|
Jan 7 17:50 UTC 2004 |
We haven't backed up the mail spool in many years.
|
naftee
|
|
response 109 of 384:
|
Jan 7 20:40 UTC 2004 |
Can this file please be mae world-readable?
-rw------- 1 cfadm software 87783 Oct 29 2000 /bbs/errorlog1.gz
|
naftee
|
|
response 110 of 384:
|
Jan 7 20:40 UTC 2004 |
mae==made
|
keesan
|
|
response 111 of 384:
|
Jan 7 21:08 UTC 2004 |
I have not received any mail except for 2 spams since Jan 1. I wrote three
friends asking them to send mail to keesan@grex.org. I sent myself two mails
just now to grex.org and cyberspace.org (but not grex.cyberspace.org). They
have not arrived. Are other people getting non-spam mail from anywhere? I
usually get 5-10 emails a day from real people.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 112 of 384:
|
Jan 7 21:49 UTC 2004 |
I've been receiving mail from correspondents elsewhere normally all week.
|
willcome
|
|
response 113 of 384:
|
Jan 7 22:04 UTC 2004 |
Yeah. /bbs/errorlog's world readable. Why shouldn't the previous version
be the same?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 114 of 384:
|
Jan 8 01:17 UTC 2004 |
I've been getting all kinds of mail myself. No one I usually hear from has
failed to write, and no one else has reported problems.
|
keesan
|
|
response 115 of 384:
|
Jan 8 12:20 UTC 2004 |
I still have not received the two mails I sent myself yesterday, or replies
from three friends, one of whom phoned and said all his mails to me were
bouncing. I will try writing @grex.cyberspace.org. So far no mail since Jan
1 except 2 spams. I normally use @grex.org. Mike and Colleen, to what
address are your mails arriving? grex, cyberspace, or grex.cyberspace?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 116 of 384:
|
Jan 8 12:23 UTC 2004 |
What is the error message in the rejection notices? Knowing that would help
diagnose the problem.
If you like, ask him to send the rejections to you at another address, then
you can paste in the text from the rejection notice.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 117 of 384:
|
Jan 8 13:35 UTC 2004 |
Once I had set up my procmail wrongly , and it was rejecting all messages.
Just thought you might want to check that too.
|
davel
|
|
response 118 of 384:
|
Jan 8 13:45 UTC 2004 |
Re 113 re 109 (talking to himself?): Why should the error log be world
readable in the first place?
|
gull
|
|
response 119 of 384:
|
Jan 8 14:32 UTC 2004 |
I've been getting mail normally from a couple mailing lists I'm on,
ebay, and any number of spammers. I use "cyberspace.org" as the host
part of my address.
Maybe you should temporarily turn off procmail and make sure it's not
deleting your mail for you.
|
twenex
|
|
response 120 of 384:
|
Jan 8 15:15 UTC 2004 |
At the risk of indulging in an exercise in futility, I'd like to not ethat
I keep getting items coming up which allegedly have new responses, but where
new responses are no-whee to be seen, and all i get is the title of the item
and the author.
|