Well, in general I believe you are correct. But I do see, by monitoring the list, that this kind of problem from time to time cause people problems. In order to help them tune a configuration to its optimal at least some kind of verbode-level logging would help. For example, the total elampsed time for doing the BLACKLIST would help a lot. Another detail is the time spend for authentication using the identd, DNS and reverse lookup. Total elapsed time would help. I also believe this would not be a lot of code to add.
I have been in to this problem in the past and all help I got was suggestions for looking at firewall configuration and missing identd response. Digging down to lower levels showed me it was the response from BLACKLIST hosts. So I believe there are some room for enhancements. /Lars -----Original Message----- From: Mitch (WebCob) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:48 AM To: Holmstr�m Lars; Mitch (WebCob); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [courier-users] delay in HELO response Am willing to entertain the idea, but why? Are response times that different in practice? Or can a simple baseline be established based on your connectivity in general... a threshold PER connection is probably a lot more work to test than a threshold per server, and I don't see volunteers yet ;-) So you'll have to justify the extra work to whoever volunteers to fix the problem. Would probably be easier to print time TAKEN if threshold is exceeded. Just guessing though - not looking at the code. m/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Holmstr�m Lars > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:44 PM > To: Mitch (WebCob); Holmstr�m Lars; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [courier-users] delay in HELO response > > > May be a treshold value for each BLACKLIST entry would make sense. If > reached, a message is printed in maillog ? > /Lars > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mitch (WebCob) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:27 AM > To: Holmstr�m Lars; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [courier-users] delay in HELO response > > I've heard of that on the list before... if a blacklist goes down or > stops responding, it can add a significant amount of time to startup. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > Holmstr�m Lars > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:41 PM > > To: Holmstr�m Lars; Mitch (WebCob); Holmstr�m Lars; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [courier-users] delay in HELO response > > > > > > But still I have not found where the time spent between the socket > > is established and courier respond with "220 <server> Ready". > > > > Can you give me some advice or hint ? > > /Lars > > > > _____ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. > Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD > software kit from IBM. Click Now! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id56&alloc_id438&op=ick > _______________________________________________ > courier-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id56&alloc_id438&op=click _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
