[SOLVED] Emails being delayed by 00:01:20 seconds while using genericstable

Rohit_4739 · 07-11-2012, 09:33 PM

Hi Folks,

I am using sendmail 8.14 or rhel6 and i am rewriting the sender address and domains with genericstable and it is working fine, but the issue is that the emails for which rewriting takes place get delayed by 1 minute and 20 seconds. Please see the logs below and also my sendmail.mc and genericstabel files and suggest what can be done.

Code:

Log file

Jul 11 22:27:16 serv1 sm-mta[11357]: NOQUEUE: connect from localhost [127.0.0.1]
Jul 11 22:27:16 serv1 sm-mta[11357]: q6C2RGen011357: from=<stu@serv1.home.com>, size=446, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<20120712022716.GD11077@serv1.home.com>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1]
Jul 11 22:27:16 serv1 sendmail[11355]: q6C2RGk5011355: to=root@box.example.com, ctladdr=stu (501/502), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay, pri=30296, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (q6C2RGen011357 Message accepted for delivery)
Jul 11 22:28:36 serv1 sm-mta[11359]: q6C2RGen011357: to=<root@box.example.com>, ctladdr=<stu@serv1.home.com> (501/502), delay=00:01:20, xdelay=00:01:20, mailer=esmtp, pri=120446, relay=box.example.com. [192.168.40.200], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (q6C2RuNH008486 Message accepted for delivery)
Jul 11 22:28:36 serv1 sm-mta[11359]: q6C2RGen011357: done; delay=00:01:20, ntries=1

Jul 11 22:29:01 serv1 sm-mta[11398]: NOQUEUE: connect from localhost [127.0.0.1]
Jul 11 22:29:01 serv1 sm-mta[11398]: q6C2T1rM011398: from=<root@serv1.home.com>, size=465, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<20120712022901.GA11352@serv1.home.com>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=localhost [127.0.0.1]
Jul 11 22:29:01 serv1 sendmail[11397]: q6C2T1jG011397: to=root@box.example.com, ctladdr=root (0/0), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay, pri=30314, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (q6C2T1rM011398 Message accepted for delivery)
Jul 11 22:29:02 serv1 sm-mta[11400]: q6C2T1rM011398: to=<root@box.example.com>, ctladdr=<root@serv1.home.com> (0/0), delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp, pri=120465, relay=box.example.com. [192.168.40.200], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (q6C2T2am008493 Message accepted for delivery)
Jul 11 22:29:02 serv1 sm-mta[11400]: q6C2T1rM011398: done; delay=00:00:01, ntries=1

Code:

Sendmail.mc

VERSIONID(`$Id: generic-linux.mc,v 8.1 1999/09/24 22:48:05 gshapiro Exp $')
OSTYPE(linux)dnl
DOMAIN(generic)dnl
define(`confLOG_LEVEL',`10')dnl
define(`confMAX_MESSAGE_SIZE',`4096')dnl
define(`confMAX_RCPTS_PER_MESSAGE',`2')dnl
FEATURE(`masquerade_envelope')dnl
FEATURE(`masquerade_entire_domain')dnl
dnl FEATURE(`promiscuous_relay')dnl
MASQUERADE_AS(`home.com')dnl
MASQUERADE_DOMAIN(`home.com')dnl
dnl MASQUERADE_DOMAIN_FILE(`/etc/mail/masqueraded-domains')dnl
dnl RELAY_DOMAIN_FILE(`/etc/mail/relay-domains')dnl
dnl RELAY_DOMAIN(`192.168.40.200')dnl
dnl #FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')dnl
FEATURE(`generics_entire_domain')dnl
FEATURE(`genericstable', `hash /etc/mail/genericstable')dnl
GENERICS_DOMAIN_FILE(`/etc/mail/generics-domains')dnl
FEATURE(`access_db', `hash -o -T<TMPF> /etc/mail/access')dnl
dnl FEATURE(`relay_mail_from')dnl
FEATURE(`blacklist_recipients')dnl
MAILER(local)dnl
MAILER(smtp)dnl

Code:

genericstable file

#@serv1.home.com		%1@office.com
rohit@serv1.home.com	diff-rohit@my.com
stu@serv1.home.com	diff-stut@my.com
@test.home.com		%1@prod.com

Thanks in advance

Kustom42 · 07-12-2012, 05:27 PM

A 1 minute delay on emails being sent isn't something I would dig too deep into, but that's just my opinion. The only thing I could think of to do here would be to strace the processes and look at what they are doing during that one minute. This could also very easily be a security feature implemented by the SMTP server, some have a time delay that they make you wait on to prevent spam. Sendmail could also be doing reverse lookups, blacklist screening, etc..

I used to tell my customers that anything within 15 minutes is acceptable for emails to be completely sent out from the server, anything beyond that I would start investigating but I wouldn't investigate anything smaller than that

Rohit_4739 · 07-16-2012, 08:33 AM

Can anyone please reply ?