Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 23 Dec 1996 06:06:02 -0500 (EST)
From:      "R.D. Thrush" <rd@thrush.com>
To:        Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org>
Cc:        freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Sendmail queue processing
Message-ID:  <199612231106.GAA08079@tarpit.thrush.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.3.95.961222230829.-79319B-100000@swoosh.dunn.org>
References:  <Pine.WNT.3.95.961222230829.-79319B-100000@swoosh.dunn.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
  I've used Paul Pomes re-mqueue.pl for the past year to improve
sendmail efficiency in a similar situation.  (It has been in contrib/
in the past several sendmail distributions).

  Extracted from the source:

# Rationale: With a limited number of sendmail processes allowed to run,
# messages that can't be delivered immediately slow down the ones that can.
# This becomes especially important when messages are being queued instead
# of delivered right away, or when the queue becomes excessively deep.
# By putting messages that have already failed one or more delivery attempts
# into another queue, the primary queue can be kept small and fast.

  I run sendmail -bd -q15m and process an ave. of 25,000 messages/day.
Messages start moving into the slower queues after 45 minutes in the
main mqueue.

>>>>> "b" == Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org> writes:
b> We have a customer that is using the ETRN feature of sendmail 8.8 to
b> retrieve mail for their domain. We are the lowest MX for their host, and
b> we have O TryNullMXList in sendmail.cf to make sendmail try the host
b> directly.

b> It is all working fine, except some, but not all, mail for their domain
b> takes a loooong time to get delivered. For example, sometimes mail from
b> our server to their server generates a "message undelivered after four
b> hours" warning. They are calling in and running ETRN every 15 minutes,
b> 24x7.

b> Now my guess as to the problem is that the messages queued for them are
b> locked by sendmail's normal processing of the queue. Is that a valid
b> diagnosis? We have an unusually large queue, I suppose, as we are one of
b> the mail relays for the FreeBSD mailing lists. Our queue usually ranges
b> from 300-500 messages. We are using -q30m.

b> The only solution I can think of is to up the interval between queue runs,
b> therefore lessening the chance that the queued messages for our customer
b> will be locked when they do an ETRN. That solution is obviously
b> sub-optimal.

b> I suppose the optimal solution would be to tell sendmail not to process
b> the queued messages for this customer unless explicitly told to do so with
b> an ETRN. Is that possible?

b> Any ideas?

b> -BD



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612231106.GAA08079>