From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Thu Dec 14 2006 - 12:39:00 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:38:20PM -0500, Joel Nimety wrote:

>
>
> Noel Jones wrote:
> > At 06:59 AM 12/14/2006, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >> Well, my problem woke me up this morning again after it ran all
> >> afternoon and last night perfectly. As I mentioned in other threads, my
> >> SMTP connections on two different servers at different locations start
> >> to slow. And it started happening on both servers at the same time. So,
> >> I did some disabling on one server and it seems to be address
> >> verification.
> >
> > This makes sense. Address verification holds the incoming connection
> > open a little longer to allow time to check the next hop for the
> > address. This can lead to using up all available smtpd processes.
> > Increase the MAXPROC column for smtpd in master.cf to fix this.
>
> What are the implications of increasing maxproc for smtpd? More memory
> usage? More cpu usage? Higher system load? I'm trying to decide if
> turning on address verification and increasing max proc is doable in my
> situation, the servers are already pretty taxed.

High volume sites (and even low-volume ones IMHO) should not use sender
address verification, it is no longer a very effective strategy, and
at this point I believe does more harm than good.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]