amavis-user March 2012 archive
Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > amavis-user archives
amavis-user: Re: Website suggestion, 2.8.0-pre4

Re: Website suggestion, 2.8.0-pre4

From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah_at_nospam>
Date: Sat Mar 10 2012 - 02:27:26 GMT
To: Mark Martinec <>,

--On Friday, March 09, 2012 6:11 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount
<> wrote:

> --On Saturday, March 10, 2012 2:32 AM +0100 Mark Martinec
> <> wrote:
>> /dev/rob0,
>>> A suggestion (or maybe it is there and I missed it): a files/ or
>>> download/ directory to make it easier to browse/find files for
>>> download.
>> I need to clean that directory before opening it up, contains
>> plenty of intermediate, experimental and dedicated versions
>> and is unsightly :)
>>> Is amavisd-new-2.8.0-pre3.tar.gz still the most recent prerelease
>>> version?
>> I just wrapped a amavisd-new-2.8.0-pre4 and added a link to it
>> to a News section on the amavis web page:
>> The 2.8.0-pre4 should be compatible with 2.8.0-pre3 as well as
>> with 2.7.0. Compared to -pre3 it contains some bug fixes,
>> plus a support for 0MQ (a.k.a. ZeroMQ or ZMQ) message passing
>> library ( ).
>> The 0MQ can replace the use of BerkeleyDB for SNMP monitoring,
>> for child process status monitoring (nanny), and perhaps logging.
>> Its main advantage over BerkeleyDB is that it avoids the problem
>> of lock contention on database updates, which can have significant
>> impact when a number of busy child processes is large. An additional
>> benefit is that monitoring can be done on a separate host, with
>> a potential for easier monitoring of multiple hosts running amavisd.
>> There are no immediate plans to remove BerkeleyDB, both choices
>> will exist for some time, but one or the other can be disabled.
> Hi Marc,
> A few questions/comments on 2.8.0-pre4. :)
> 1) avoid persistent connections to SQL and LDAP servers - at the expense
> of about 3 to 7 ms elapsed time for a reconnect; persistent connections
> from mostly idling child processes unnecessarily consume database server
> resources (e.g. a TCP socket) and may become stuck when some
> intermediate
> stateful device like a firewall or a NAT decides to drop stale sessions;
> reported by Jernej Porenta;
> Can this be made optional? A well written LDAP server is designed to
> handle persistent connections. I don't know what Jernej was using, but
> apparently it wasn't well designed. In any case, well designed LDAP
> servers also allow you to set a server-side timeout if you really don't
> want idle connections sitting about.
> 2) I see you did some work on the Amavis portions. Will a scalable LDAP
> solution be supported as previously discussed? See discussion from
> 12/10/2008

3) LDAP schema expansion to include looking domain disclaimer maps. The
solution in 2.6.4 doesn't scale well with 10,000+ domains. (See discussion
from 12/10/2008)


-- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration