Hi Viktor,

Thanks for your time and patience. I added the "relay" transport to reach
conrepmail.com and it became a bit faster yesterday. And today it is somehow
smooth but I still want to fasten it up. Is there any method through which
the mails to conrepmail.com can be stored on a local account and later I can
read them through POP3?

Kindly suggest.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Viktor Dukhovni
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 9:27 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Mails time before queue manager

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:48:05AM +0530, KK Patnaik wrote:

> 1) [root@smtp2]#qshape incoming active deferred
>                           T    5   10    20    40    80   160
>                 TOTAL 95414 8130 5019 11477 13835 33457 23496
>        conrepmail.com 16397 1871  606  1255  3142  6792  2731
>               aol.com   743   30   45    83    97   308   180
>   vsoftconsulting.com   356   10   12    49    43   146    96
>            nihaki.com   308    8    9    24    47   130    90
>           baanyan.com   277    7    8    26    42   115    79
>         sbcglobal.net   270   11    6    30    37   109    77
>               net.com   265   30   19    28    38    83    67
>         erpanderp.com   253    4   11    29    32   109    68
>          techgene.com   240   10   12    19    42    91    66
>        stansource.com   230    7   11    35    29    85    63
>               a1k.com   225    7    8    26    33    93    58
>    canvasinfotech.com   222    8    7    33    32    84    58
>            comsys.com   221   25   14    35    29    69    49
>             rsrit.com   214    8   11    28    35    88    44
>        usmsystems.com   213    4   13    26    24    87    59
>         compunnel.com   211    8    9    25    28    91    50

Out of ~96000 still queued messages that arrived in a 2--3 hour window, 1 in
6 is a bounce back to your own domain.  If you're not a spammer, your list
management practices are extremely poor.  If your intent is to process mail
for legitimate non-spamming customers, you are not doing a good job of
keeping the folks with garbage lists away.

Furthermore, why are bounces back to your own domain not delivered promptly?
Your bounce rate should probably be well below 2%, not 16%.  You should be
using the "relay" transport to reach conrepmail.com so that bounces don't
queue behind outbound mail.

I asked for collated samples for delayed mail from some of the above most
delayed domains, below you show mail that was not substantially delayed.
You're wasting everyone's time presenting tiny crumbs of information, and
often the wrong crumbs.

There are still no "c+d" statistics (moving expontially decaying average
over time is best).

        # If handling multi-recipient mail, process only the first of
        # multiple log entries with same smtpd[<pid>] and same queue-id
        # logged during the same minute.
        #
        foreach SMTP delivery # insert real code here
            $meancd = 0.99 * $meancd + 0.01 * ($c + $d);
            if ($count % 100 == 0) {
                printf "%s %s\n", $delivery_time, $meancd;
            }

>  Mar 31 09:11:15 smtp2 postfix/smtpd[16466]: connect from 
> mm3.conrep.com[76.12.143.99] Mar 31 09:11:15 smtp2 postfix/qmgr[10231]:
8872C12400DC:
> from=<uemlmm3_87001237348238_100130003...@conrepmail.com>, size=53529,
> nrcpt=1 (queue active)

No delay entering the active queue, and this is not one of the domains at
the top of the qshape listing AND:

> Mar 31 09:11:18 smtp2 postfix/smtp[15252]: 8872C12400DC:
>       to=<ab...@promorphics.com>,
>
relay=promorphics-com.mail.protection.outlook.com[207.46.163.138]:25,
>       delay=2.9, delays=0.07/0/0.16/2.6, dsn=2.6.0, status=sent
>       (250 2.6.0 <20140331131115.8872c1240...@smtp2.conrepmail.com>
>       [InternalId=22514218568637,
>       Hostname=DM2PR04MB527.namprd04.prod.outlook.com]
>       Queued mail for delivery)

the "a + b" delays here sum to 0.07 seconds.  This is not a delayed message,
you're wasting everyone's time with this.

> Mar 31 09:11:18 smtp2 postfix/smtp[12171]: A594712400EF:
> to=<ab...@itssonline.com>, 
> relay=smtp.secureserver.net[68.178.213.37]:25,
> delay=14, delays=0.05/0/5.6/8.3, dsn=5.2.0, status=bounced (host 
> smtp.secureserver.net[68.178.213.37] said: 552 5.2.0 kDB41n0172ClyZo01 
> - kDB41n0172ClyZo01DBAKn  IB212 msg rejected as spam (in reply to end 
> of DATA
> command))

Ditto, but now we see that some receving systems concur that the messages
are likely spam.

> Apr  1 09:38:57 smtp2 postfix/smtp[20003]: 944671240115:
> to=<ab...@thoughtmill.com>, relay=none, delay=6.1, 
> delays=0.04/3.5/2.6/0, dsn=4.4.3, status=deferred (Host or domain name 
> not found. Name service error for name=thoughtmill.com type=MX: Host 
> not found, try again)

Mail to a bogus domain, still low total delay, ...

> Apr  1 09:38:58 smtp2 postfix/bounce[28306]: 944671240115: sender 
> non-delivery notification: 2769A124008B

Premature bounce due to disabled retries preventing interoperation with
greylisting...

> Apr  1 09:38:56 smtp2 postfix/smtp[19719]: 6E35F1240105:
> to=<aks...@reliableassociates.com>,
> relay=mailstore1.secureserver.net[216.69.186.201]:25, delay=31, 
> delays=0.22/0.48/29/1.6, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host 
> mailstore1.secureserver.net[216.69.186.201] said: 550 #5.1.0 Address 
> rejected. (in reply to RCPT TO command))

Poor list management still low cumulative delay, but finally a very high $c,
connecting to the backup MX.

> Apr  1 09:38:57 smtp2 postfix/smtp[19972]: 7A0FD1240142:
> to=<ab...@betheltech.net>, relay=none, delay=5.4, 
> delays=0.05/5.3/0.02/0, dsn=5.4.4, status=bounced (Host or domain name 
> not found. Name service error for name=betheltech.net type=A: Host not 
> found) Apr  1 09:38:58 smtp2 postfix/bounce[28309]: 7A0FD1240142: 
> sender non-delivery notification: 27AB912400CC

Still low $a + $b (the queue is not congested yet) and negligible $c + $d)
since destination domain is bogus and another bounce.

> The above are some of the results at the start of the day on 31st Mar 
> and on 1st Apr. Let me know if you need any further information in this
regard.

I'd done here.  You're on your own.

-- 
        Viktor.

Reply via email to