Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: dan trainor (dan.trainorgmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 11 2009 - 16:21:58 CDT
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Wietse Venema <wietseporcupine.org> wrote:
> dan trainor:
> > Hello, all -
> > I've sent an email through Postfix which has one recipient, which is an
> > alias via alias_maps (mysql lookup table). I've had just a little bit of
> > experience with this type of delivery, but not a lot of experience with
> > many final recipients.
> > Right now I see the message sitting in the 'active' queue, but its been
> > sitting for some time.
> Is this before or after alias expansion? It can take some time to
> expand 300k aliases from SQL. In fact, the local delivery agent
> may be terminated by a watchdog timer (daemon_timeout = 18000s).
> I suspect that SQL is taking its time.
> A minor concern: the expansion of 300k aliases will be written to
> a new queue file, so it needs to fit within the message_size_limit
> Once the new queue file is complete, the queue manager will
> be quite busy scheduling deliveries.
> You may want to dry-run test this without outgoing mail enabled.
Good evening, Wietse -
Shortly after sending that message out, I realized that this was happening.
I do in fact see the 'local' transport very busy, eating as much CPU as it
The message sitting in the queue has been placed there before alias
expansion I would assume. I say that assuming the sleeping thread in MySQL
from the Postfix map resolution process is the result of already having
queried MySQL, and also that there is only one message in that 'active'
queue which does not have those aliases expanded.
I'm going to give it some more time, and see what happens first - the
'local' transport finishes up as the result of the message(s) being sent,
being killed by daemon_timeout, or something else.
That's a good point regarding message size limit; I did not think about
that. This would clearly be the cumulation of those final recipient
addresses in the message itself, as documented by "...including envelope
Thanks again for your time.