On 14-Dec-1999 Dave Sill wrote:
> 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.
Or you could decide to have a list of domains that are "bad" for your
concurrencyremote and smtproute'them to a different relay, one that only deals
with that kind of stuff...
--
Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IP - Engenharia de Rede <http://ip.pt/>
Av. Duque de Avila, 23, 1049-071 LISBOA - PORTUGAL
tel: +351 21 3166740/00 (24h/dia) - fax: +351 21 3166701
