logs archiveIRC Archive / Freenode / #exim / 2010 / July / 2 / 1
johno
hi there
if I wanted to measure how much load a server is going throught when I pass millions of test emails throught it
how would I do this on a freebsd system using exim and ubuntu using exim?
henk
load as in 'uptime'?
johno
as in how much stress the server is going throught
like anylising where bottle necks are
eg. am I lacking memory
how many emails are being processed a second
is the bottle neck on the network card
okay I have gone instane
:(
henk - if I wanted to show you the conf file. How would I do it without spamming this channel
?
henk
some pastebin...
sorry, i just know how to tell when a system is having problems where they might come from.
i don't really know how to actively search for potential bottlenecks in exim really...
are there any problems so far?
johno
yea
my acl broke
it was working yesterday
:'(
henk
debug it then... looking for bottlenecks pretty certainly is not a way to debug it.
johno
http://paste.ubuntu.com/458231/
thats the conf file
no, I thought I could move onto the next phase of testing after I setup the acl
and see how much stress the server would come under if some spammer tried to send emails throught the system
but I tested the acl again this morning and it seems to be broken
henk
debug it
johno
acl_check_sender:
accept condition = ${lookup{$sender_address_domain}lsearch{/var/rocketseed/mailrocket/accepted_domai
deny
         

henk
YOU debug it...
we're just here to help with real problems...
johno
k
I have red the debuggin part in the exim specifications
not sure where to start
for example
I run the following command on an email exim -d -M 1OUbHE-00006S-T7
I got the ID from the exim_mainlog
I getI get the following output
http://paste.ubuntu.com/458234/
but I am not sure what this all means or how to anylisis this information
henk
Spool file 1OUbHE-00006S-T7-D not found
probably the mail with that id is already gone...
johno
hi henk
I ran the debug comand specificly for acl's
and I got this
http://paste.ubuntu.com/458240/
but my acl does not sem to be listed
henk
is it in the conf?
johno
yes
henk
show me
johno
k
henk
i.e. grep youraclname yourconfigfile
johno
:/var/log/exim# less /usr/local/exim/etc/exim.conf | grep acl_check_sender:
acl_check_sender:
#acl_check_sender:
does that help?
henk
johno: when is that acl to be used?
johno
it is the first acl to be used
henk
can you paste your acl section please?
johno
before the IP check and SMTP authentication check
http://paste.ubuntu.com/458242/
as you can see from the top of the conf file
I added the following things
acl_smtp_mail = acl_check_sender
to define which selector the acl uses
henk
johno: read what 'acl_smtp_mail' is for.
johno
then I place the acl above the acl that checks for a IP address of the sending server and the authentication username/password
ACL for MAIL
http://exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch14.html
henk
exactly. that's when it's used.
johno
sorry I am not quiet following
henk
http://paste.ubuntu.com/458240/
johno
I thought the definition only determins the type of information it looks at
         

henk
it's not supposed to be used there yet afaik
johno
so how do the acl selectors work?
henk
check the docs. i don't understand the question.
johno
k
so which Policy controls should I use
if acl_smtp_mail = acl_check_sender is not the correct one?
henk
i can't really follow you...
it is correct.
well... depends what you want. but to me it looks correct.
johno
I want the exim system to check the domain of the sender is listed in a file
before it checks for the sending servers ip address or authentication (like username/password)
I have tried to do this by setting up an acl with a condition to deny
sorry condition to aceptp, otherwise deny
the condition looks up the senders domain and compares it to a list stored in the file
henk
why do you say acl_smtp_mail then?
johno
because it's a check on the mail?
what does the statment acl_smtp_mail = acl_check_sender suppous to define? I think thats where I am going wrong then
I thought it was suppous to define the what variables are checked
no joy?
:(
henk - future reference the reason the acl did not get called was because the acl_smtp_mail = acl_check_sender statment had to be above the other acl policy declarations
thanks anyway
got it sorted finally and is stable
berndj
is there a way to force a defer in a router? something better than route_data = <unrouteable IP> ?
phx
berndj, you can defer it in ACLs
berndj, read the docs
henk
johno: i'd have said: it's not working as you expect, because you expect it to work _before_ giving the 'MAIL FROM:' smtp command...
johno
henk not sure what that means
henk
afaik acl_smtp_mail sets what acl is checked after the MAIL FROM command is received. your paste didn't show your acl_check_sender acl because your paste ended with exim greeting you which is before you give the mail from command...
berndj
phx, unfortunately i need to accept the mail, but "hold" it while we're upgrading the system that includes a pipe transport. I want to 250 the mail, but hold off on delivering it to the pipe transport.
phx
berndj, you can also do that, yes. rtfm
berndj
i did rtfm, searched for "defer", found all of its occurrences, none of them seemed relevant to my requirement. do you think i just randomly asked real people instead of rtfm?
i was hoping someone actually knew an idiomatic way of doing it, but it seems not
phx
no
you was looking for defer, because you did a fairly suboptimal solution for your issue, which could have be done easier with a defer ACL
but that's even worse than a bad workaround for your issue
berndj
no, it couldn't, as i've already explained
phx
check the control options for the ACLs
berndj
returning 4xx is not an option for me
phx
returning a tomahawk to your head is an option to the world
will you pretty please just do as i say?
berndj
ok i see, you aren't actually interested in helping. never mind
henk
berndj: why do you _need_ to accept the mail? why is 4xx not an option?
phx
berndj, i'm actually helping
berndj
henk, because otherwise our whiny customers call us and demand to know why their mail "isn't going through"
phx
berndj, control = queue. go and check that. 2xx will be returned, and the mail will stay in the queue
you're just so fu*king stupid
berndj
those damned customers who pay our salaries, you know
and you're just so fu*king helpful
henk
'shrug' your choice...
you could just do what works but if it's more important to you that clients without any clue about smtp _think_ their mail gets through, that's your choice. good luck.
berndj
henk, my personal preference is in fact for 4xx, but my opinion doesn't always hold sway
yeah, well, i'll pass that along to our suits
and actually, control = queue_only does seem like what we want. so thanks for helping me find it in tfm, phx
except it won't work due to queue runners coming along every minute or so?
phx
frozen messages are not processed by queue runners
what i said definitely won't do what you want. it's just a hint somewhere near to your solution, mind you
« prev next »