Re: frozen messages on debian stable exim server
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:49:34AM -0700, Jared Marcum wrote:
> I have a mail server running debian stable that has a ton of messages
> frozen in the mail queue. The following four references seem to indicate
> I should perhaps turn on the sender_verify and receiver_verify options.
Well... First off, how long have they been in the queue? Normally,
frozen messages will sit there forever until manually removed. So if
you've been running the mail server for three years and have a
hundred frozen messages sitting there, that's no big deal.
> However, since this is a production machine serving an entire University
> Department I'm hesitant to make the changes without being really sure
> it's the right thing to do. Can anyone verify that this is the right
> path? Are there any dangers of lost emails or other user-perceivable
> differences I should be aware of? Once these options have been added,
> are there any suggestions on how best to go about clearing out the
> emails already frozen? (exim -Mrm <message id> ??)
exim -Mrm is the correct command, but it's a bit of a pain to run
manually, plus, of course, you have to remember to do it. On the
mail servers I run, I've noticed that the only messages which tend to
stay frozen for more than a day or two are attempted bounces for spam
to (and from) nonexistent addresses, so I just toss them after three
days with the following script in /etc/cron.daily:
#!/bin/sh
# Quick script to discard all messages which have been frozen long enough
# that their age is listed in days (3 days appears to be the breakpoint)
exim -Mrm `exim -bp | grep "^..d.*frozen" | cut -c 11-26` &>/dev/null
exit 0
Neither I nor any of the users on my servers have noticed any lost
(legitimate) messages or other anomalies.
--
The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the
White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that
we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened.
- Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html)
Reply to: