On 11/12/10 10:27 AM, "Jeroen Geilman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 11/12/2010 07:06 PM, Rob Tanner wrote:
>>  Is there a limit on incoming messages on a single connection? Hi,
>>  
>> Our admissions office sends out mass mailings to prospective students,
>> anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000 at a time.  They are mail-merged and sent via
>> outlook to the postfix server, one recipient per message.  The user reports
>> that outlook sends out 500 messages and then stops.  If he restarts outlook,
>> it will send out another 500 and then stop again.  If he leaves it overnight,
>> it might send several more thousand by morning.  When I look in the mail
>> logs, somewhere around 500 messages, followed by a disconnect.  What I don¹t
>> know is whether outlook is disconnecting or whether postfix is closing the
>> connection.
> 
> Examine the log more carefully.
> If the client disconnects, this is logged as "postfix/smtpd[PID]: disconnect
> from hostname[IP]".
> 
> Unless the client exceeded a configured error limit, postfix will not
> disconnect the client.
> 
>>   Is there a limit, configurable or otherwise, to the number of messages
>> postfix can receive on a single connection?  And at that point, does postfix
>> close the connection to the client?
>>  
> 
> How do you know it is a single connection ?
> 
The connects and disconnects are logged and I don¹t see multiple connects
from the client (i.e., I don¹t see a connect followed by another connect
without a disconnect in between).  And from your comments above, it¹s clear
that the client disconnected from the server and not the other way around
which strongly suggests that this is an outlook/user issue and not at all
related to the server.
> 
> If this known-to-be-fairly-braindead MUA sends each message on a new SMTP
> connection, postfix may well exceed the configured error limit and start
> throttling the client.
> 
> You need to figure out what is really happening :)
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>  
>>  
>>  Rob Tanner
>>  UNIX Services Manager
>> Linfield College, McMinnville Oregon
>>  
>>  
> 

Reply via email to