Benjamin Smith wrote:
On Monday 25 February 2008, Christopher Chan wrote:
Hmm...it will still build. To really fix it, you need to do one more step:
rpm -e --nodeps sendmail
Now that is a permanent solution.
Like a hand grenade is a "solution". Not likely to help him much, tho. =/
Doesn't even begin to address his situation since sendmail wasn't the problem
to begin with.
Whooosh! Did you see that flying over your head?
Seems to me that it's a bad idea to use NFS as a mail store. For example, the
RedHat documentation specifically recommends strongly *against* it. Very
flatly:
/me shrugs. Pick your poison. Besides, Redhat is not the absolute
authority on how to run a mail system.
Never put the mail spool directory, /var/spool/mail/, on an NFS shared
volume.
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/security-guide/s1-server-mail.html
Also, NFS has various locking problems which prevent its use in a proper mail
cluster. Read up on sendmail's mbox vs qmail's maildir for more details. Not
suggesting that you switch to qmail, with it's "recompile the whole !@#!
thing every time you change a config option" mentality, but it's useful
information nonetheless, especially when you get into having multiple mail
receipt hosts.
procmail, postfix local, maildrop all support maildir. qmail is not even
necessary. Or is this your excuse to do a bit of qmail bashing?
The additional complexity of NFS is what seems to have caused this gentleman's
problem - not only did sendmail itself have to work properly, so did NFS,
DNS, and the spam filter.
Yawn. postfix + mysql + courier-authlib + cyrus-sasl + vpopmail +
spamassassin + clamav + maildrop.
How to avoid it? Either:
1) Reduce complexity. (get rid of the need for DNS, NFS, etc. or
What is your proposal for getting rid of DNS? I, for one, would like to
see how you intend to make email work without dns.
2) "Beef up" the various pieces so they don't fail - make sure you are using
high quality servers and equipment, or
3) Increase redundancy, so that no single point of failure exists.
Why is he depending on a single DNS server? Why is he using NFS, with it's
implicit single-point-of-failure rather than GlusterFS, which provides
multiple-primary-host redundancy and automatic failover?
http://www.gluster.org/
I do not know the answer to that one hotshot. Maybe you can ask the OP
nicely?
Christopher
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
