High Loads, server emails you

[servertweak]

Find this this on another thread will be great to have in DA admin panel

#!/bin/bash

up=`uptime`;
echo $up >> /home/shell/chris/public_html/server_load.txt
up=`echo $up|awk '{split($0,a,"average:"); print a[2]}'`
#echo $up;

a=`echo $up|awk '{split($0,a,","); print a[1]}'|awk '{split($0,a,"."); print a[1]}'`
b=`echo $up|awk '{split($0,a,","); print a[2]}'|awk '{split($0,a,"."); print a[1]}'`
c=`echo $up|awk '{split($0,a,","); print a[3]}'|awk '{split($0,a,"."); print a[1]}'`

x=0;

if [ $a -gt 1 ]; then x=$(expr $x + 1); fi
if [ $b -gt 1 ]; then x=$(expr $x + 1); fi
if [ $c -gt 1 ]; then x=$(expr $x + 1); fi

if [ "$x" -eq 3 ]; then mail -s "Inertia $up" [email protected] < /home/shell/chris/public_html/server_load.txt; fi

Now again, found this from another thread and will like to see it on DA

 

[smtalk]

+1 for this, because if we'll have this feature - we don't have to write scripts by ourselves or use 3rd party scripts.

 

[empowering]

Disagree.

This is a control panel, not a server monitor. In addition, if the load is high, you assume that it will have enough resources to send out an Email in a timely fashion and Email is working. using something like nagios on another server or a third party monitoring service is a much better method.

 

[empowering]

IMHO DA's time should be better spent on preventing high server loads, like removing the catch-all feature ;-) which causes us much grief.

http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14255

 

[xemaps]

ok empowering

lol servertweaks => should we add load to the load ?
just limit load in exim, it's easy, just read the exim manual.

 

[nobaloney]

Many of us manage server loads and still offer catchalls to folk who need them.

While I discourage all our users from implementing catchall, I wouldn't want to see it removed from the server; it's a check item that many users look for when chosing a hosting company.

If you're using SpamBlocker features you should be able to keep spam to a manageable level without high machine loads.

Jeff

 

[xemaps]

If you're using SpamBlocker features you should be able to keep spam to a manageable level without high machine loads.
Jeff

Stop dreaming Jeff, your spamblocker does not avoid load, just in certain case limit it, but can add load too...

 

[empowering]

While I discourage all our users from implementing catchall, I wouldn't want to see it removed from the server; it's a check item that many users look for when chosing a hosting company.

yea because other hosting companies are removing this feature. There is NO point to this feature in today's spammy world. It's a stupid feature and customers that want it have no idea what issues it can cause them and the provider they are using. We've had customers who have had it enabled and then quickly get suspended when 20k Emails are in their inbox from a dictionary attack. Especially if we are using your spamblocker every email then must go through spamassassin, which increase CPU load even more.

We are removing spam filtering off of the our shared hosting servers because of the amount of load it is causing. IMHO exim stinks as an anti-spam solution. postfix is MUCH better and you have many more options. We are opting for a centralized solution as well. So our shared servers wll just handle outgoing Emails.

In addition many of the customers that have the catch all enabled, then proceed to forward it to an off site account, increasing the load even more. Then those same users decide to report those messages as spam (say hotmail or AOL) and then those providers blacklist us for sending spam to them because their filtering is too dumb.

Tell me ONE good reason why offering a catch-all is a good idea???

 

[nobaloney]

Stop dreaming Jeff, your spamblocker does not avoid load, just in certain case limit it, but can add load too...

Really?

By blocking tens of thousands of spam emails from even getting onto the server with only a few one-packet DNS calls it's adding load?

You're trying my patience.

Please be specific in your response as to how keeping tens of thousands of emails off a server can add load.

I know you don't think SpamBlocker is a good job, and that you've hinted over and over again that you have a better solution, but so far you haven't been willing to share it with the community, so we have no way of knowing if you actually do have a better solution or not.

If you have a better solution, we'd be happy to see it offered to all the other forum members.

Jeff

 

[nobaloney]

Especially if we are using your spamblocker every email then must go through spamassassin, which increase CPU load even more.

Why? SpamAssassin and SpamBlocker are totally separate processes, and by default both are turned off in every DirectAdmin install. You can certainly use one without the other, and many of us do.

We are removing spam filtering off of the our shared hosting servers because of the amount of load it is causing. IMHO exim stinks as an anti-spam solution.

That's your opinion. One of the most successful spam-blocking companies uses it exclusively; the gent who wrote their solution is also one of the major contributors to the SpamAssassin community. He and I share a lot of ideas to help me make SpamBlocker better.

postfix is MUCH better and you have many more options.

That's your opinion, too, and of course you're welcome to it. Unfortunately DirectAdmin doesn't offer it. The one time I tried postfix I didn't see better solutions, but I agree that was some time ago. The reason I chose to write SpamBlocker for exim is simple: I was using DA, and DA uses exim. So I decided to not complain but rather work on fixing the problem by writing SpamBlocker. You certainly don't have to use it. As a matter of fact, by default it's not even turned on in DirectAdmin by default; you have to take positive steps for it to work.

We are opting for a centralized solution as well. So our shared servers wll just handle outgoing Emails.

Many of us are looking at a centralized solution. In fact I am as well. But that doesn't help the many people who use DirectAdmin who can't afford to create such a solution. So there'll always be people who want to block spam right on their DA server.

In addition many of the customers that have the catch all enabled, then proceed to forward it to an off site account, increasing the load even more.

I agree. That load goes down quite a bit if you implement SpamBlocker for their domain(s).

Then those same users decide to report those messages as spam (say hotmail or AOL) and then those providers blacklist us for sending spam to them because their filtering is too dumb.

I agree with that as well. We resolve the issue with AOL by setting up a peering arrangement with them; they forward every email reported as spam back to us, and we can tell our clients that they're in violation with the terms of service. Which is what we do. Then they either clean up their act or are no longer our client. The recommendation we make is to either turn off catchall or to not report the email as spam. Sometimes both.

Tell me ONE good reason why offering a catch-all is a good idea???

I already did, because it brings us customers.

That said, I'm not against making it an option that you can turn on or off on a per-package or even per-user basis, just as you can with many other DA options.

Jeff

 

[DirectAdmin Support]

Hi guys,

I'll add the catch-all as a package/user option.
Just give me some time to enjoy the holidays

John

 

[xemaps]

Hi guys,

I'll add the catch-all as a package/user option.
Just give me some time to enjoy the holidays

John

nice,
have good time !

next year please have a look on feature request topic
thxs