ADM: removed user [MAILER-DAEMON-iwfKpA2/[email protected]

-                                                 [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------


--hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline


Hi folks, 

I've removed him, since his mails are bouncing for some days.

cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT services

 phone:     +49 36207 519931         www:       http://www.metux.de/     
 fax:       +49 36207 519932         email:     [email protected]
 cellphone: +49 174 7066481	     
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Diese Mail wurde mit UUCP versandt.      http://www.metux.de/uucp/

--hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.7) with UUCP id h966lEOr021922
	for [email protected]; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:47:14 +0200
Received: from tibor.swiftdsl.com.au (tibor.swiftdsl.com.au [202.154.92.226])
	by jengate.thur.de (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h966kNpT024404
	for <[email protected]>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:46:25 +0200
Message-Id: <200310060646.h966kNpT024404-+ipTDfMb4ygqBVzcWMN6mQ@public.gmane.org>
Received: (qmail 3899 invoked for bounce); 6 Oct 2003 06:46:13 -0000
Date: 6 Oct 2003 06:46:13 -0000
From: MAILER-DAEMON-iwfKpA2/[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: failure notice

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at tibor.swiftdsl.com.au.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<kryton-wh2Gl981Flk0n/[email protected]>:
The users mailfolder is over the allowed quota (size).

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: (qmail 3885 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 06:46:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO m1.dnsix.com) ([63.251.171.167])
          (envelope-sender <[email protected]>)
          by tibor.swiftdsl.com.au (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <kryton-wh2Gl981Flk0n/[email protected]>; 6 Oct 2003 06:46:12 -0000
Received: from [217.17.193.190] (helo=jengate.thur.de)
	by m1.dnsix.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
	id 1A6P5F-0001Xt-00
	for [email protected]; Sun, 05 Oct 2003 23:43:06 -0700
Received: from jengate.thur.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by jengate.thur.de (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h966c0pT024195;
	Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:38:00 +0200
Received: from nibiru.UUCP (uucp@localhost)
	by jengate.thur.de (8.12.10/8.12.6/Submit) with bsmtp id h966bHCl024184;
	Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:37:17 +0200
Received: (from metux/listserv@localhost)
	by metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.7) id h966a2RF014947
	for metuxmpm-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:36:02 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: nibiru.metux.de: metux/listserv set sender to [email protected] using -f
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.7) with UUCP id h966ZC3F013240
	for [email protected]; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:35:12 +0200
Received: from dgap-gw.mipt.ru (dgap-gw.mipt.ru [194.85.81.130])
	by jengate.thur.de (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h966WZpU024025
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <[email protected]>; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:32:36 +0200
Received: (qmail 7620 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 06:32:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO kenwood.dgap.mipt.ru) ([194.85.81.138])
          (envelope-sender <[email protected]>)
          by dgap-gw.mipt.ru (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <[email protected]>; 6 Oct 2003 06:32:35 -0000
From: "Dmitry P. Schegolev" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [metuxmpm] Metuxmpm test failed
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:29:18 +0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <1064496781.6710.63.camel-Qbc1XiJbIx94JyBok0HCYPDwsYJMFQGK@public.gmane.org> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200310061029.18914.dmitry-8vtNIAoMdG7Dd9xlW2Tctw@public.gmane.org>
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: normal
Reply-To: [email protected]

-                                                 [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> > separate program, not apache program, which only get data from tcp socket
> > and multiplex it to ordinary apache process rely on http header.
>
> too slow, too resource intensive.
Why? What difference? Now separate apache program do the same. It's called 
multiplexer. As I understood, It now use unix socket to transfer data to 
apache process. I don't see any difference.

<snip>

>
> there are several reasons, i.e. reusing mod_ssl for ssl handling and
> other similar cases.

Now we have problems with mod_ssl, and as I see, great problems. And if 
mod_ssl be a separate module between tcp socket and ordinary apache, life 
would be easier.

tcp_socket -> ssl_handling_module -> multiplexer -> apache_fork

I think it's more cleaner structure, than tomorrow apache structure.
You don't want ssl? Omit ssl_handling_module in configuration!
You don't want multiplexer? Omit it!

Best regards,
Dmitry.

P.S. May be it offtopic, sorry :)

--hHWLQfXTYDoKhP50--