james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stuart Roebuck <stuart.roeb...@adolos.co.uk>
Subject Re: Packet is larger than max_allowed_packet from server configuration of 1048576 bytes
Date Thu, 09 May 2002 08:43:27 GMT
Thank you for these really helpful replies.

I can confirm that I'm using MySQL and that only the inbox is stored 

In addition I have a nice example that doubly confirms your thinking.  
One of the mail addresses handled by James is both forwarded to an 
external email address and also stored in the inbox.  When one of the 
'deadly' emails arrives it gets forwarded correctly but never reaches 
the inbox.

I'll try the latest CVS - could you clarify which patch needs to go on 
top of that, or whether the patch is already in the lastest CVS?

I'll also look into MySQL configuration and see if I can spot something 
there about maximum binary field limits.



On Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 04:55 PM, Serge Knystautas wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I wonder if that is one of those cases that "shouldn't happen", as was 
>> just
>> discussed in the thread on configuring the SMTP server?
>> Serge, wouldn't this hit the bad code that we just discussed?  Is this
>> exception going to be tossed back and handled by 
>> LocalDelivery.service(),
>> resulting in exactly the consequence we were just talking about?  
>> Should
>> Stuart pull the current 2.0a3 release apply the patch to
>> LocalDelivery.service() that you just posted to the mailing list, and
>> rebuild James?
>> 	--- Noel
> Yes, this is Murphy's law at work... within an hour of pronouncing that 
> an error was never reported, it's reported.  Stuart can apply that 
> patch and use the latest version to halve the number of messages going 
> into error.
> More overly, I'm pretty sure the problem is with the JDBC driver... I'd 
> bet it's mysql, and while I'm not really expert about that db, there 
> seems to be a meg limit on the binary field by default.
> What's interesting though is (I'd guess that) Stuart is using the db 
> for the inboxes but file system for spooling.  This would explain why 
> we rarely see this error in LocalDelivery because if there was a 
> problem storing the message in a repository, it normally would have 
> been caught when storing it in the spool first (because inboxes and 
> spool would use the same repository type.  certainly not a requirement 
> but just in practice seems to be the case).
> -- Serge Knystautas
> Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites
> http://www.lokitech.com/
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:james-dev-
> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-
> help@jakarta.apache.org>

            Public Key - 1024D/88DD65AF 2001-11-23 Stuart Roebuck (Adolos)
      Key fingerprint = 89D9 E405 F8B1 9B22 0FA2  F2C1 9E57 5AB1 88DD 65AF
Stuart Roebuck                                  stuart.roebuck@adolos.com
Systems Architect                             Java, XML, MacOS X, XP, 
ADOLOS                                           <http://www.adolos.com/>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message