We have the source; let's fix it.
What the people with the problem are asking for appears to
be for qmail to not split up identical mails intended for
multiple recipients at identical hosts. These are real problems
and poo-pooing them as degenerate cases or something produces nothing.
In terms of modifying, this might not be the "extensive
rewrite" that "life with qmail" claims it will be. I see two
parts to change:
We want (1)the part that splits messages with multiple recipients
to group by mail-host-name and merely split by mail-host-name,
and also (2) that qmail-remote can issue multiple rcpt-to instructions
in these cases. That is all. Two patches. Three, with (3)
record-keeping
regarding who has received and who has errorred adjusted to work with
(2.)
People who are running mailing lists (which need VERPS) behind
low-bandwidth
links are not covered by this patch proporal: They need to form
cooperatives
and rent servers with good connections.
Looking at the chart
qmail-smtpd --- qmail-queue --- qmail-send --- qmail-rspawn ---
qmail-remote
/ | \
qmail-inject _/ qmail-clean \_ qmail-lspawn ---
qmail-local
it is not exactly clear at which point a mail that is CCd to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gets split into three messages. (by smtpd, queue or send?)
man pages indicate ... that qmail-remote "sends the message
to one or more recipients at a remote host." Which means that
it still hasn't been split up when qmail-remote gets it, and that
qmail-remote is the only program that would need to be patched.
Is this accurate, that messages withmultiple recipients are
associated with a single queue entry until they are delivered
and cleaned up, and that all delivery multiplexing happens within
qmail-remote? If so, qmail-remote is the only part of the system
which needs to be tweaked, and the groundwork is already there.
Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > I think Postfix just sorts by FQDN, so it doesn't have to do 10,000
> > DNS lookups before it starts delivering. But by doing that, it
> > potentially misses a lot of combining for different FQDN's with the
> > same MX.
>
> "A lot" being a speculation or based on real-world data? <evil grin>
qmail-remote has to look up the MX records too, so adding a switch
to just sort by host name or wait until all the mx queries are back
before
sorting would not be that hard; but this advanced optimization would
only make sense as something to toss in AFTER sorting and grouping by
hostname
is in place, at that point it's simply adjusting the sort/group method,
it isn't introducing any new architectural features.
______________________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End Daylight Savings Time in our lifetime
