On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:41:28PM -0600, Ken Jones wrote:
> Mark Delany wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:15:45AM +0800, Wayne Chu wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2000 22:04 schrieb Thomas Duterme:
> > > > > How about increasing your concurrencyremote to something
> > > > > like 100? you most likely are hitting your limits.
> > > >
> > > > Good point. Will try that tonight. I've gotten some
> > > > problems before from ISP's blocking us
> > > > when I went up to 240...I'm not quite sure what the highest
> > > > polite limit on this should be.
> > >
> > > My newsletter program calls qmail-qmqpc directly.
> > > Does qmail send mails to recpt in the order I write the address
> > > to qmail-qmqpc?
> >
> > It surely does. But that's ultimately just a queuing order and it
> > doesn't necessarily mean a delivery order.
>
> Delivery order depends on DNS servicing smtp servicing and the
> exact code you are using to inject emails into qmail-pmpqc.
Right. But all things being equal, their will be a very strong
correlation between the injection order and the delivery order. DNS
lookups may certainly perturb this, but don't fundamentally change it
in anyway.
> > As it happens, yes. I don't believe that it is gauranteed in any
> > documentation, therefore relying on this current behaviour may be
> > risky.
>
> Your delivery order depends on your remote concurrency limitations,
> the availablity of dns results and your disk IO.
No, yes, no. Concurrency does not change order. DNS results may
perturb order, disk IO is unlikely to change order. In other words,
there remains a strong correlation. Your point is?
> Why are you so concerned about delivery order?
>
> What is your ultimate goal?
I think the original poster made that clear. He wants to minimize the
concurrency to any one domain by sorting the recipients in such a way
that the recipient domains are distributed across the whole list.
> Why is delivery order such a concern?
How is this a different question from "Why are you so concerned" etc.
> So.. You sit back.. and launch your spam list on the internet,
> and you wonder why.. when it gets to the yahoo.com list...
> it stalls with 255 remote deliveries, and they all take a long
> time to complete. And you are upset because you can't get your
> spam list delivered?
>
> Just what kind of email are you delivering?
Ken. You're assuming a spammer here - if you're wrong what do you
think you're achieving apart from besmerching his name?
In any event, if you've worked with large lists and large delivery
capabilities, you'll know that many sites *do* block based on
concurrency. Why only a month or so ago I was working with a company
that does 20+million deliveries on a busy day and they were blocked by
hotmail based on exceeding concurrent connection limits. It took quite
an amount of work to have hotmail remove their automated block (phone
calls, ceo to ceo, blah blah blah) - but they did so in the end,
solely because they were ultimately convinced of the opt-in nature of
the email.
These problems do happen regularly in real life with legitimate
lists. Perhaps the original poster has suffered the same problem?
> Your questions smack of spam problems.
Your answers smack of speculation.
Regards.
