Sluggishness

chazz · August 14, 2007

I am having a problem in that, if I send email to Spamcop to report spam, it hits the Ironport servers within minutes; sits two hours within the first (sc-smtp1-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com, 01:13:45 -0700 to 03:55:10 -0700), before it gets forwarded to the second (sc-appl.soma.ironport.com); that one processes it in about a minute and a half and then sends it back out. But then sc-smtp2-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com sits on it for six hours (03:56:31 -0700 to 16:33:06 -0000) before dropping it into mx53.cesmail.net. Once it gets into the cesmail chain it's pretty quick, getting to me within minutes. It is difficult to make a timely report on spammers if the information I need to make the report is sitting in a mail queue for literal hours, going stale...

I have been using Spamcop for years. Literally. I stopped using the reporting email because of this sort of sluggishness, then found that immediately after the Ironport takeover it became useful again. It is really handy to get that report back quickly, and I can't say how sorry I am to see this slowdown appear again.

Wazoo · August 14, 2007

This has noting to do with the SpamCop e-mail systems, hosted and run on JT's hardware on the east coast. Your 'complaint' is about the IronPort owned and maitained hardware running on the west coast. With this post, moving to the Reporting Help forum section.

turetzsr · August 14, 2007

This has noting to do with the SpamCop e-mail systems, hosted and run on JT's hardware on the east coast. Your 'complaint' is about the IronPort owned and maitained hardware running on the west coast.
<snip>

...At least you're not alone -- I'm having the same problem.

djtodd · August 14, 2007

Yeah I'm running into that as well. 6 hour delay almost right on the nose.

chazz · August 15, 2007

Does Ironport monitor these forums, or is there some way we can contact them?

For what it's worth, my latest submission to the processing address shows this (redacted my identiying info only) in the message proper:

The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:
 Return-Path: &lt;xxxx[at]xxxx.com&gt;
Received: from sc-smtp2-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com (sc-smtp2-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com [204.15.82.125])
	by sc-app7.soma.ironport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B912B2F918
	for &lt;submit.xxxx[at]spam.spamcop.net&gt;; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.xxxx.com (HELO mail1.xxxx.com) ([209.53.210.249])
  by sc-smtp2-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2007 08:23:07 -0700
Received: from mail1.xxxx.com ([10.0.0.190]) by mail1.xxxx.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:29:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7DE87.F9153E7E"
Subject: spam Report
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:29:36 -0700
Message-ID: &lt;ADCD5FB38EF5F644B7DF52F7ABB97F41335478[at]cinnamon.xxxxx.local&gt;
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: spam Report
Thread-Index: Acfeh/MOCuKiNiiyR3GTaKooGfQJCQ==
From: "xxxx" &lt;xxxx[at]xxxxx.com&gt;
To: &lt;submit.xxxxxx[at]spam.spamcop.net&gt;
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2007 15:29:58.0656 (UTC) FILETIME=[F938F800:01C7DE87]

showing that it sat for 5 hours in sc-smtp2-bulkmx; and the headers of the message proper are:

Received: from xxxx.xxxx.com ([10.0.0.254]) by mail1.xxxx.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:27:04 -0700
Received: from c60.cesmail.net (c60.cesmail.net [216.154.195.49])
	by xxxx.xxxx.com (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l7F0JcMk000970
	for &lt;xxxx[at]xxxx.com&gt;; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:20:00 -0700
Received: from unknown (HELO blade4.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.214])
  by c60.cesmail.net with SMTP; 14 Aug 2007 20:19:38 -0400
Received: (qmail 12729 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Aug 2007 00:19:37 -0000
Delivered-To: spamcop-net-xxxx[at]spamcop.net
Received: (qmail 28408 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2007 00:05:21 -0000
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0 (2007-05-01) on blade4
X-spam-Level: 
X-spam-Status: hits=-100.0 tests=DRUGS_MUSCLE,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=3.2.0
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)
  by blade4.cesmail.net with QMQP; 15 Aug 2007 00:05:21 -0000
Received: from sc-smtp3-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com (204.15.82.124)
  by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 15 Aug 2007 00:05:17 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: s=devnull; d=spamcop.net; c=nofws; q=dns; b=XwzrRRZxMib1tpEqyXFX13lggAV4L4wVyqCE2UibgPDp2gUc0NltAf2d30ZKXiRVCAFTz4dqdkqtnnXbSfvIhafWFAFL6iIUoyREw9kh7deFx+iyKECCgi7fi4KegxH7;
Received: from sc-app7.spamcop.net ([204.15.82.116])
  by sc-smtp3-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 2007 13:34:14 -0700
From: SpamCop AutoResponder &lt;spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net&gt;
To: xxxx[at]spamcop.net
Subject: [SpamCop] has accepted 15 emails for processing
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:34:15 GMT
Message-ID: &lt;spamid1394761214[at]msgid.spamcop.net&gt;
Content-type: text/plain
In-Reply-To: &lt;ADCD5FB38EF5F644B7DF52F7ABB97F41335478[at]cinnamon.xxxx.local&gt;
References: &lt;ADCD5FB38EF5F644B7DF52F7ABB97F41335478[at]cinnamon.xxxx.local&gt;
X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 204.15.82.124 204.15.82.116 
X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net
X-XXXX-MailScanner-OpenProtect-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-XXXX-MailScanner-OpenProtect: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-XXXX-MailScanner-OpenProtect-MCPCheck: 
X-XXXX-MailScanner-OpenProtect-From: spamid.1394761214[at]bounces.spamcop.net
Return-Path: spamid.1394761214[at]bounces.spamcop.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2007 00:27:06.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[029DCBF0:01C7DED3]

showing that it sat for almost 4 more hours in sc-smtp3-bulkmx.

Wazoo · August 15, 2007

Just some simple observations .... several unannounced outages in the last couple of weeks ... the announced maintenance period that was to occur yesterday, which was cancelled ... another small outage that occured today .... hint .. stuff is happeing there ....

the age old story of the intent of the e-mail submission of spam in the first place .. you know, I'm actually tired of repeating it. Bottom line, e-mail spam submittal is a 'background' process ... Through the ages, hardware upgrades have been applied, speed notched up, more users arrived, system started slowing down, then another hardware upgrade was applied, things sped up, more users arrived ... rinse, repeat ....

Does Ironport monitor these forums, or is there some way we can contact them?

Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff User Guide

Credits and thanks

Not sure why the "IronPort support" issue needs to be raised yet again. Don/Deputies deal with them, and as has been posted previously, they receive 'engineering reports' that are gobbilty gook ... I'll make the assumption that there's a lot of IronPort tech stuff included, SpamCop.net stuff might rate a paragraph or two ...

Wazoo · August 15, 2007

Brought over from the newsgroups;

From: Ellen <nobody[at]spamcop.net>
Newsgroups: spamcop.help,spamcop.mail

Subject: Re: No more answers to submitted spam emails since 10:04 (MET) today

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:35:39 -0400

Message-ID: <f9tlaq$fkp$1[at]news.spamcop.net>

<snip>

We had some mailserver issues which caused delays both inbound and

outbound. Operations made some changes tonite to alleviate the

situation. If you still have problems when you submit spam tomorrow

please write to deputies <at> admin.spamcop.net and let us know.

Ellen

SpamCop

chazz · August 15, 2007

Thank you. Recall, I'm just a noob... a happy and long-term user, but I don't know all the ins and outs of how things work... and yes, things have started working again, about a two-minute turnaround this morning.

I don't know where I'd look to see the previously-made comments that mail submission is a background task, but even if I did see that, that still wouldn't explain the multi-hour delay in the Ironport servers; it would explain a delay once the mail got to the parsing engines, but there is no real delay there at all.

Wazoo · August 15, 2007

Thank you. Recall, I'm just a noob

and most of us here are volunteers ....

What's really 'bad' about this .. a user posted the same kind of query into the spamcop.mail newsgroup, which has caused great issues for some, as it doesn't exist on the 'official' Help/FAQ page. That user also cross-posted into the spamcop.help newsgroups, which has basically been abandoned. For whatever reason, Ellen posted a Reply to this user's query.

Several folks posted their queries into the primary spamcop newsgroup, another user did the same thing I did here .. carted over Ellen's post from elsewhere .... which brought up the question ..."Where was the Announcement?" ... and the answer is .. there was no "Announcement" .. only Ellen's reply into two very low-traffic newsgroups.

SpamCopAdmin · August 18, 2007

I don't know where I'd look to see the previously-made comments that mail submission is a background task

I can't imagine where you would find it, either, but it's true.

spam processing is King. Mail takes a back seat to processing, and when things are busy, we start to see mail delays.

And we *are* busy. SpamCop is processing over 50 Million spams a week now.

Plus, sometimes a server that's handling incoming mail will accept it, and then just sit on it for some unknown reason. All very strange.

I get copied on the explanations the engineers send, but they're meaningless to me. It's like talking to a dog. All I hear is jargon jargon jargon, blah blah blah, we should be able get it fixed by tomorrow.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

spamdetester · August 19, 2007

I can't imagine where you would find it, either, but it's true.

spam processing is King. Mail takes a back seat to processing, and when things are busy, we start to see mail delays.

And we *are* busy. SpamCop is processing over 50 Million spams a week now.

Plus, sometimes a server that's handling incoming mail will accept it, and then just sit on it for some unknown reason. All very strange.

I get copied on the explanations the engineers send, but they're meaningless to me. It's like talking to a dog. All I hear is jargon jargon jargon, blah blah blah, we should be able get it fixed by tomorrow.

- Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin -

This is first post from a total newbie of advanced years. Spamcop seems a great idea but when I report under quick-report system (ie forwarding spams as attachment) the three or four spams which I receive daily, half of them disappear, the others bring an auto-response up to 24 hours later. My average response time is 15 hours even though I have forwarded spam within 30 seconds of receiving it.

This has been puzzling me for six months. Is it simply that Spamcop is the victim of its own success and is attracting more messages than it can handle?

Wazoo · October 12, 2007

Received via PM .. brought 'here'

Hi Wazoo!
I'm sorry to bother you with a PM, but I'm having a bad brain day and I can't think of the proper term for the e-mail SpamCop sends back saying "has accepted x e-mails for processing" - mine are coming back hours after I can report them from the page 'http://www.spamcop.net/' and I want to know if others are seeing this too.

No traffic in the newsgroups on this, nothing 'here' yet beyond your query.

Looking at the graphic/link up at the top left, I'd say that the Parsing & Reporting system is getting pretty hammered at present. This would lead me to repeat the data offered above, e-mail submissions for parsing are handled at a much lower priority than other things (as it was designed to do)

StevenUnderwood · October 12, 2007

Received via PM .. brought 'here'

No traffic in the newsgroups on this, nothing 'here' yet beyond your query.

Looking at the graphic/link up at the top left, I'd say that the Parsing & Reporting system is getting pretty hammered at present. This would lead me to repeat the data offered above, e-mail submissions for parsing are handled at a much lower priority than other things (as it was designed to do)

I did notice a bit of delay this evening: Sent: ~16:00, Received: ~17:00

Received: (qmail 9530 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2007 22:24:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (192.168.1.108)

by blade3.cesmail.net with QMQP; 12 Oct 2007 22:24:05 -0000

Received: from sc-smtp3-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com (204.15.82.124)

by mx71.cesmail.net with SMTP; 12 Oct 2007 22:24:04 -0000

Received: from sc-app5.spamcop.net ([204.15.82.24])

by sc-smtp3-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com with SMTP; 12 Oct 2007 14:08:06 -0700

From: SpamCop AutoResponder <spamcop[at]devnull.spamcop.net>

To: underwood[at]spamcop.net

Subject: [spamCop] has accepted 1 email for processing

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:08:07 GMT

SpamCop is now ready to process your spam.

Use links to finish spam reporting (members use cookie-login please!):

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1473069725zd...b28a9a45a7250cz

The email which triggered this auto-response had the following headers:

Received: from sc-smtp2-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com (sc-smtp2-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com [204.15.82.125])

by sc-app5.soma.ironport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7262D2F92E

for <submit.IF5yMUH5s9HzAENf[at]spam.spamcop.net>; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:06:50 -0700 (PDT)

Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49])

by sc-smtp2-bulkmx.soma.ironport.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2007 12:55:30 -0700

Received: from unknown (HELO epsilon2) ([192.168.1.60])

by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2007 15:55:30 -0400

Received: from 12.30.28.14 ([12.30.28.14]) by webmail.spamcop.net (Horde

MIME library) with HTTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:55:30 -0400

Sluggishness

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived