[CentOS] Recommend Mail Server

Christopher Chan christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk
Tue Nov 24 03:29:18 UTC 2009


Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 11:00 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
>   
>> Ian Forde wrote:
>>     
>>> On Nov 23, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Christopher Chan 
>>> <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk 
>>> <mailto:christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> You probably really want ldap for that sort of thing.
>>>>>           
>>>> You probably really want to reconsider using ldap for anything that gets
>>>> loads of changes daily.
>>>>         
>>> In the case of a mail relay, at one point  years back I decided to 
>>> drop (not bounce) all email to bogus recipients at the relay level 
>>> rather than let it get to (yuck) Exchange, which would bounce it. The 
>>> trick was having an updated recipient list. My first thought was to 
>>> query Active Directory for each user, thus getting an up-to-date result.
>>>
>>> This turned out to be a *bad* idea for a couple of reasons. 1) if I 
>>> can't reach AD, mail won't queue up on the relays, which is one of 
>>> their major functions. 2) I'm making the relays directly dependent on 
>>> AD latency. 3) any flood of email from outside can cause a large 
>>> amount of queries against AD, causing a DOS that the relays are 
>>> supposed to shield the internal network from.
>>>
>>> So instead, I found a script to gather the list of users from AD, did 
>>> some modifications and wrote some wrappers. The result? A script that 
>>> runs from cron to get the list of valid addresses, convert them into 
>>> an access file that sendmail (or postfix, in the first case years ago) 
>>> can use instead. There's a little more latency, but as long as I do 
>>> some sanity checking (too many changes? Send an alert and don't change 
>>> the access file) it works just fine. Ldap-based, yes. But loosely 
>>> coupled. A good compromise in my experience...
>>>       
>> Precisely why a buffer like this for sites with a very large user base 
>> might want to use cdb. postfix supports cdb and sendmail can get cdb 
>> support from sf.net/sendmail-cdb. Both need the tinycdb library though. 
>> Even mysql/postgresql could do with a break for legit users.
>>     
> ----
> considering that LDAP is optimized for high amounts of read and minimal
> writes, the problem with any SMTP daemon querying an LDAP server getting
> bogged down suggests that other problems are at hand and should be
> solved. I mean if the primary user/authentication system can't handle
> the load, you got problems.
>
>   

I was trumpeting postfix's mysql/postgresql support and then Les says 
LDAP is the way to go and then I point out that LDAP don't like heavy 
write environments and you are starting the circle again.


/me tramples LDAP underfoot, gets a horse to trample LDAP, gets a tank 
to complete the job.


LDAP ain't THE SOLUTION for everything you know.


> I admire the workarounds but damn, you have to solve the problems anyway
> because this surely isn't the only place where this is a problem.


Ian pointed how he needs to 'replicate' a local copy of user 'accounts' 
from Exchange so that he does not kill Exchange. I just pointed out that 
this sort of thing can be done also for sites with a very large user 
base that will want something that is more efficient that Berkeley DB. 
You can chain lookups in postfix. Check cdb, then check 
mysql/postgresql. If the account exists in the cdb, then there is no 
need to check mysql/postgresql. So essentially only non-existent 
addresses and recently created addresses will result in hits to 
mysql/postgresql. This is not a work around. This is performance 
enhancement. Whacking a local cdb will be faster than whacking a 
mysql/postgresql database. Geez.


More information about the CentOS mailing list