On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:48:26AM -0600, adrian ilarion ciobanu wrote:
> > queue, and served by dedicated servers as in:
> >
> > http://www.plonk.de/sw/odmr/
>
> odmr is mail relaying. if one chooses this solution then one probably
No, because with ODMR one cannot relay until some unspecified future
time when the destination system chooses to poll you. With normal
relaying, one expects and largely gets real-time forwarding, and thus
low congestion.
> What you describe sounds like day-by-day mail relaying, practically for me
> there's no "ODMR mail", just mail waiting to be relayed. Maybe I'm wrong and
> ODMR must be
> seen as delivery or something else since it must be hooked up everywhere in
> the process, it seems. The only difference
> is how the relaying process is finalized. Normal smtp, etrn or atrn. So i
> think
The Postfix deferred and active queues have practical size limits. High
volumes of ODMR mail can push you into poor performance regimes, because
the active and deferred queues are gummed up with mail to unreachable
destinations.
Delivering ODMR mail to an envelope preserving store, separtes the ODMR
and non-ODMR recipients of a message, with the ODMR mail not needlessly
cycling in and out of the deferred and active queues.
> Thats one point I can't agree with for having the atrn totally decoupled
> from postfix queue and related configurations.
I think you are mistaken. The benefit of getting such mail out of
the queue, and the advantages of being able to process the backlog
synchronously outside normal queue-manager scheduling, outweigh the
disadvantage of a dedicated ODMR service IMHO.
--
Viktor.
P.S. Morgan Stanley is looking for a New York City based, Senior Unix
system/email administrator to architect and sustain our perimeter email
environment. If you are interested, please drop me a note.
