Options if disk space problems on target server? |
Post Reply ![]() |
Author | |
MartinC ![]() Guest Group ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 02 February 2004 at 5:27am |
Are there any options in Spamfilter for getting mail to queue up if any problems? Unfortunately, due to the level of mail from MyDoom and the increased tracking logs we ran out of disk space on a server and lost a small amount of mail overnight. Spamfilter recognises the problem with something like:- 01/30/04 03:54:24:881 -- (2052) EMail from: x@x.com to: username@domain.com was returned to sender - server error - server.com said: Unable to accept message because the server is out of disk space. but doesn't appear to queue the message, instead warns the sender. Our previous mailer would just store the messages until they were able to be sent... is this not the case with Spamfilter.. or have we missed an option somewhere in the config? |
|
![]() |
|
kspare ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 26 January 2005 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 334 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I think everyone's first question is why aren't you filtering out the mydoom virus so that your server's disk space doesn't fill up?
|
|
![]() |
|
MartinC ![]() Guest Group ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
we are filtering the virus, but after spamfilter though since it has to be first in the chain to do the BL lookup. NB for obvious reasons, we aren't using the beta version but the current production version so no way of using the new attachment blocking feature. thanks for your help. an alternative target server selection or a proper queue option would solve our problem but I can't see a way to do this.
|
|
![]() |
|
LogSat ![]() Admin Group ![]() ![]() Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Martin, SpamFilter will queue mail if your destination server is unavailable. Inyour case however, it's there and simply rejects emails sent to it. In that case SpamFilter is designed to assume the emails will not be delivered and notifies the sender. I understand how this can be a problem, since what your server may be trying to say is "I can't accept any emails now, but pelase try again later". If you are able to post EXACTLY what the error message fro your server to SpamFilter is, including any numeric codes prefixing the error, we may be able to find a solution. Roberto F. |
|
![]() |
|
eric ![]() Guest Group ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
on the wish list ? ehlo sequence -> 55? disk full try again later
spamfilter stops accepting when disk is lower then 32768kb for example.
|
|
![]() |
|
Desperado ![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 27 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1143 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Martin, We have our "target server" configured to issue a "451" server busy message if it runs out of temp drive space. Spam filter seems to accept that as a "try again later" request and queues it. However, our "Target Server" is our AntiVirus server and we DO NOT quarantine ... we either clean it and deliver it or send it to the bit bucket so the chance of running out of drive space is very slim. We did, however receive a message we never saw before from the virus scanner as follows: A maximum load condition is occuring!. (from BULLWINKLE Serial# 00000686 0000cb37 8e2d9246 IP 66.181.192.32 user SYSTEM running WebShield 4.5 MR1a '_') We are still going through logs to see if mail was lost or delivered. at the time of this message, we were filtering all attachments EXCEPT zip files so the virus scanners load should have been reduced. We saw over 720,000 virusus in a single 24 hour period so we were happy we only "barfed" once or twice. As I said, we still have not finished seeing if that very strange message caused SpamFilter to queue or kill the message. I have a tree and a rope ready for the writers of email virusus! Dan S. |
|
![]() |
|
LogSat ![]() Admin Group ![]() ![]() Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Eric, If your destination SMTP server is not reachable, or the session is disconnected while forwarding it a message, SpamFilter will queue the message and retry later. However if your destination SMTP server is active, but rejects the mesage with an error code, currently SpamFilter ignores that error code, and will assume that the message was rejected. This can be improved. Your destination SMTP server can send two types of error codes. One category will indicate temporary errors, ex. "low on disk space", and permanent error conditions, ex. "you cannot relay". Per RFC 2821 temporary erros codes are in the range 400-499. Permament error codes are in the range 500-599. We have just modified the current build under development to honor the temporary error codes, and queue the message for later delivery if encountering an RFC reply error code between 400 and 499. Permament errors between 500 and 599 will cause the message to be rejected as usual. The next beta build will feature this new behavior. Thanks for pointing this out to us. Roberto F. |
|
![]() |
|
LogSat ![]() Admin Group ![]() ![]() Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Martin, As I replied later in this thread, please find below our comments to your observations: ========================================== If your destination SMTP server is not reachable, or the session is disconnected while forwarding it a message, SpamFilter will queue the message and retry later. However if your destination SMTP server is active, but rejects the mesage with an error code, currently SpamFilter ignores that error code, and will assume that the message was rejected. This can be improved. Your destination SMTP server can send two types of error codes. One category will indicate temporary errors, ex. "low on disk space", and permanent error conditions, ex. "you cannot relay". Per RFC 2821 temporary erros codes are in the range 400-499. Permament error codes are in the range 500-599. We have just modified the current build under development to honor the temporary error codes, and queue the message for later delivery if encountering an RFC reply error code between 400 and 499. Permament errors between 500 and 599 will cause the message to be rejected as usual. The next beta build will feature this new behavior. Thanks for pointing this out to us. Roberto F. |
|
![]() |
|
LogSat ![]() Admin Group ![]() ![]() Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4105 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hi Dan, As I replied later in this thread, please find below our comments to your observations: ========================================== If your destination SMTP server is not reachable, or the session is disconnected while forwarding it a message, SpamFilter will queue the message and retry later. However if your destination SMTP server is active, but rejects the mesage with an error code, currently SpamFilter ignores that error code, and will assume that the message was rejected. This can be improved. Your destination SMTP server can send two types of error codes. One category will indicate temporary errors, ex. "low on disk space", and permanent error conditions, ex. "you cannot relay". Per RFC 2821 temporary erros codes are in the range 400-499. Permament error codes are in the range 500-599. We have just modified the current build under development to honor the temporary error codes, and queue the message for later delivery if encountering an RFC reply error code between 400 and 499. Permament errors between 500 and 599 will cause the message to be rejected as usual. The next beta build will feature this new behavior. Thanks for pointing this out to us. Roberto F. |
|
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
|
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.191 seconds.