From: Gary D. Margiotta (no email)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 16:06:00 EDT
Yes, you are correct about the webserver part. I was just using that as
an example for argument's sake. However, I would be curious to see how
that does stack up when run against a maillog... maybe I'll try that and
see where it goes.
-Gary
Running Windows is kinda like playing blackjack:
User stays on success, reboots on failure
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Doug Clements wrote:
> Just a small something I noticed..
>
> on 5/1/02 12:00 PM, Gary D. Margiotta at wrote:
> > To chime in on this as well, in running reverse lookups for our analog
> > reports, almost 65% of the hosts hitting one of the sites were
> > unresolveable. This server receives over 50,000 distinct hosts requesting
> > pages per day, and 65% of 50,000 is just around 35,000 hosts. That's a
> > lot of damn hosts which don't resolve. And while they're mostly part of
> > dhcp pools, just setting up a blanket reverse zone shouldn't be all that
> > hard.
>
> It sounds like you're talking about a web server, which talks to a very
> different class of machines than normal smtp servers. Barring the minority
> that send mail from their dialup/dsl/cable modems, most smtp traffic comes
> from other ISP's mail servers. I would hope that administrators give greater
> attention to proper configuration of their servers than to their dial pools.
>
> While I get (and tend to agree with) the point you're trying to make, I
> think the numbers could be adjusted to be a little more accurate. Maybe run
> log analysis on your smtp logs, and compare them to what you got for web
> logs? That might be interesting to see.
>
> --Doug
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, send mail to with content
> (not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users
>
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users
|
|
|