On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:00:26PM +0100, Martijn Brinkers wrote:
> > iminate all queues from the filter, it should be a proxy. Let Postfix
> > do all the queueing, it is much better at this than the filter.
>
> The filter is based on James which is a Java based email server and
> cannot be used as a proxy, at least not without a major overhaul. The
> biggest reason I added the max queue size check to the filter is that
> Postfix is much better in queuing than James.
>
> Are there any drawbacks, Postfix wise, when using connection throttling
> for the filter?
You are solving the wrong problem. Your filter absorbs mail too fast,
queues it and then pushes back. It is far better for the filter to take
its time before responding to "." and thus to tie up Postfix connections
while the filter is catching up.
Also sounds like your filter is not able to process mail as fast as
it is coming in. If that is the case you can never win. The peak
output rate has to be above the average input rate.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
