I've made the switch from pine to mutt, and I have 2 questions. 1. Why is mutt so slow in sending outgoing email? Pine delivered outgoing email quickly, but mutt seems MUCH slower -- too slow to even consider that there's a performance problem. It seems to be some issue about how it interfaces with sendmail. (I'm using my own machine as an outgoing relay through my web services provider.) 2. I had set up a filter in pine to move "[SPAM]" subject lines to a different folder. Should I try the same thing with mutt, or should I use procmail? (I'm not sure of the syntax.) mutt syntax? I can't find anything that looks right at all. procmail syntax? I already have spamassassin set up: :0fw: spamassassin.lock | /usr/bin/spamc So I think I need to add: :0 * ^Subject: *\[SPAM\] $HOME/Mail/autospam (I'm a newbie with procmail, too.) TIA, Bill
On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 17:24, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
I've made the switch from pine to mutt, and I have 2 questions. [...]
I've tried Mutt in the past, but ran into a few problems. The biggest has to do with using it with a hierarchy of IMAP folders. I'd like Mutt to flag (highlight) folder with unread messages. Last time I tried, I could get it to highlight folders with new (since last session) messages, but not "remember" older, unread messages. I've gone through several howtos, but never could get this to work. Anyone doing this now? - Bob
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 05:24:54PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
I've made the switch from pine to mutt, and I have 2 questions.
1. Why is mutt so slow in sending outgoing email? Pine delivered outgoing email quickly, but mutt seems MUCH slower -- too slow to even consider that there's a performance problem. It seems to be some issue about how it interfaces with sendmail. (I'm using my own machine as an outgoing relay through my web services provider.) <snip>
I've learned something more about the slowness of mutt... It seems that sendmail is taking about 15 seconds to process the email. Here's a snippet of an email header: Received: from newguy.mills.curran (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB2M5NMk002065 for <mills-curran_bill@emc.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:24 -0500 Received: (from bcurran@localhost) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2M58Vk002061 for mills-curran_bill@emc.com; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500 These are the 1st 2 header records (in normal reverse order). Note that there's a 16 second gap (it's typically 15) between the 1st and the second. So, I think I have something in sendmail that's causing this. Any ideas? For now, I've set the mutt configuration to submit the email in a subprocess so that I'm not waiting interactively. TIA, Bill
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
Received: from newguy.mills.curran (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB2M5NMk002065 for <mills-curran_bill@emc.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:24 -0500 Received: (from bcurran@localhost) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2M58Vk002061 for mills-curran_bill@emc.com; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500
Does newguy.mills.curran resolve locally to either 127.0.0.1 or your public IP? Usually this is done in /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost newguy.mills.curran OR: 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost eth0.ip.address newguy.mills.curran
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:52:30PM -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
Received: from newguy.mills.curran (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB2M5NMk002065 for <mills-curran_bill@emc.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:24 -0500 Received: (from bcurran@localhost) by newguy.mills.curran (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2M58Vk002061 for mills-curran_bill@emc.com; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500
Does newguy.mills.curran resolve locally to either 127.0.0.1 or your public IP? Usually this is done in /etc/hosts:
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost newguy.mills.curran
OR:
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost eth0.ip.address newguy.mills.curran
Neither -- I have it set for my private IP (NAT firewall): 192.168.1.12 newguy.mills.curran newguy Bill
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
So, I think I have something in sendmail that's causing this. Any ideas?
Perhaps a difference between calling the sendmail binary to put the mail in the queue and connecting to port 25? Although IIRC both do sendmail binary by default. It sounds like some kind of auth or dns timeout. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Meanwhile the US military officials are looking for their next target in the war on terrorism. Today President Bush restated his commitment to the war on terror, saying, "You're either with us, or against us, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, both."" - Bill Maher
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:56:01PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:41:07PM -0500, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
So, I think I have something in sendmail that's causing this. Any ideas?
Perhaps a difference between calling the sendmail binary to put the mail in the queue and connecting to port 25? Although IIRC both do sendmail binary by default.
It sounds like some kind of auth or dns timeout. <snip>
I agree, but I haven't found it yet. I did find something in the sendmail logs -- a "delay" and "xdelay" that look about the right length for my problem. I'm not sure if that's significant, or I'm just grasping at straws. Here are a couple of entries: Dec 2 17:05:08 newguy sendmail[2061]: hB2M58Vk002061: from=bcurran, size=329, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<20031202220508.GJ1246@newguy.mills.curran>, relay=bcurran@localhost Dec 2 17:05:24 newguy sendmail[2065]: hB2M5NMk002065: from=<bcurran@mills-curran.net>, size=492, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<20031202220508.GJ1246@newguy.mills.curran>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] Dec 2 17:05:24 newguy sendmail[2061]: hB2M58Vk002061: to=mills-curran_bill@emc.com, ctladdr=bcurran (500/502), delay=00:00:16, xdelay=00:00:16, mailer=relay, pri=30329, relay=localhost.us.dg.com. [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (hB2M5NMk002065 Message accepted for delivery) Dec 2 17:05:29 newguy sendmail[2067]: hB2M5NMk002065: to=<mills-curran_bill@emc.com>, delay=00:00:05, xdelay=00:00:05, mailer=relay, pri=30492, relay=mail.mills-curran.net. [65.18.197.115], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (hB2M5Po13164 Message accepted for delivery) I think they are all associated with a single outgoing email from my home machine to my work address. For now I've buried the problem with a mutt config change, but I'd like to understand the issue and fix the root cause. Thanks, Bill
participants (4)
-
Bill Mills-Curran -
Bob George -
Charles R. Anderson -
Theo Van Dinter