Sorry, I don't exacly got it. What is the problem of having a high minimal_backoff_time in a normal a MTA? You suggest me to have a fallback_relay only to try to deliver that messages, right?
Thanks Pedro Axelrud http://mailee.me http://softa.com.br http://flavors.me/pedroaxl On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 15:36, Jeroen Geilman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/11/2010 05:10 PM, Pedro Axelrud wrote: > > Yeah, what Mark said is totally correct, the message is almost the same >> to the two million recipients, but each delivery has one recipient and >> different links to track clicks, let him/her u_n_s_u_b_s_c_r_i_b_e (my reply >> before this got bounced because it have these word so they thought I want to >> get off the list) and all those things. >> > > In each server we have a daemon that get all the data from database, >> generate each message and queue it through local smtp. >> > > That would have been useful to know the FIRST time. > > > >> Thank you Jeroen, the idea of changing the *minimal_backoff_time* is >> great, we should have thought about that before. Also thanks for the doc >> I'll give a look right now. >> > > Don't do this for a normal MTA; start a second instance for spamming if > this will be a regular thing. > Keep everything nicely separated. > > > -- > J. > >
