Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>> Peter Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Just to clarify, I want the queues to be 'cascading'. The first queue has
>> >extremely short timeouts and retries set to 0. Upon failure to deliver from
>> >the first queue, the message is then forwarded to the second queue, where
>> >timeouts and retries are more sane.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that this will
>> improve performance?
>
>None; it's purely speculation on my part. We're seeing the problem many
>others have seen during busy periods: up to concurrencyremote number of
>connections (180) to hotmail.com (or aol.com or whatever) and the inability
>for any of our mail to get through.
>
>Part of the reason for this is that we have our relay server broken apart
>from where we actually store the e-mail. Thus, even deliveries to *our*
>domains are remote, since they must go from our relay to our POP3/IMAP/&c.
>server.
You could install a second qmail for your "remote local" mail. Have
the main qmail route to the secondary qmail using a virtual domain.
-Dave
