> 2017-10-18 17:37 GMT+02:00 Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]>: >> On Oct 18, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Charlie Elgholm <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is there some way to have Exim rate-limit the queue runners, so they only >> process - let's say 10 messages per minute - for a domain (like >> outlook.com/live.com) - _regardless_ of how the message was put in the >> queue.
> If you forward the mail to a Postfix outbound relay, you can create > a clone of the "smtp" transport called "slow", select "slow" as the > transport for outlook.com and live.com and get at most 10 messages > per minute to each by setting: Thank you for this answer, since it's a workaround. But I rather not put more products in the pot, since that also requires training, support, security-considerations, etc, etc, yada-yada... My main customer is a bit picky. =) > slow_destination_rate_delay = 6s > > To prevent over-eager dead-host detection, you should also > have: > > slow_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 10 > > If you decide to avoid rate limits and instead set a low > concurrency limit, you would then have something like: > > # The default concurrency limit is 20 > slow_destination_concurrency_limit = 5 > slow_destination_concurrency_negative_feedback = 1/8 > slow_destination_concurrency_positive_feedback = 1/3 Thank you for this. Excellent. It's certainly worth experimenting with. But I would probable go "Full-Postfix" then, and try to rewrite all the rules I have for our Exim-installation, instead of being dependent on both products. > Exim has more flexible built-in input processing, so you would > continue to receive email via Exim, but then use a Postfix > relay as an outbound "smarthost" for at least some domains. Yepp, this is what most people end up doing I have noticed, since Exim's queue-runners are "stupid" compared to other products. (Which I personally don't believe, since Exim's configuration format and many enhancements should be implemented on the queue-runners as well.) > If you want the rate-limit to apply collectively to any of > outlook.com/live.com/hotmail.com, you can declare a common > nexthop for these: > > outlook.com slow:outlook.com > live.com slow:outlook.com > hotmail.com slow:outlook.com > > based on the observation that they presently (and will likely > continue to) have the "same" set of MX hosts: > > $ dig +short -t mx outlook.com | sort -n > 5 outlook-com.olc.protection.outlook.com. > 10 mx1.hotmail.com. > 10 mx2.hotmail.com. > 10 mx3.hotmail.com. > 10 mx4.hotmail.com. > > $ dig +short -t mx live.com | sort -n > 2 live-com.olc.protection.outlook.com. > 5 mx1.hotmail.com. > 5 mx2.hotmail.com. > 5 mx3.hotmail.com. > 5 mx4.hotmail.com. > > $ dig +short -t mx hotmail.com | sort -n > 2 hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com. > 5 mx1.hotmail.com. > 5 mx2.hotmail.com. > 5 mx3.hotmail.com. > 5 mx4.hotmail.com. > > The highest priority MX on each list points to a DNS load-balanced > name, which draws addresses from the same pool in all three cases, > but any one lookup will often yield slightly different addresses. > > See: > > http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Balancing-destination-concurrency-rate-delay-td54147.html > http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/dealing-with-Yahoo-slowness-td35340.html > > -- > Viktor. Thank you, Viktor, sincerely. There's nothing better than to have one recommend something, and then also showing the commands behind it and a good explanation of why and how. Perfect! I haven't given up on Exim as of yet, but your solution is a workaround I can live with myself. I just couldn't explain it to my customer as of now. =( -- Regards Charlie Elgholm Brightly AB -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
