Hi Viktor, Thanks once again for helping me on this.
Please understand that I'm very "open" and thankful for any help. I'm also trying to understand what you meant. Getting whitelisted is always the best solution, but believe me, there are some providers that just don't answer any email, they just won't help us to even work in compliance with their rules. Thats why I'm asking for help here. Sometimes you guys speak in a very advanced language and it may be hard for some people to understand what you're meaning. Worse than that is when we try to explain our problem and we're not clear enough. So I tried to better explain myself and then you became with another solution. Anyway, I'll search how to use this "next hoop" feature and see if it fixes the issue. Although I'm still having to respect the amount of message per time frame so the question persists: how can I low down delivery to these destinations without opening too many connections to them? Having them all in one only transport/nexthoop will not fix the problem if I don't control the throughput, right? Sorry for the questions, I'm really trying to understand the solution here. Thanks once again. Att. -- Rafael Azevedo | IAGENTE Fone: 51 3086.0262 MSN: raf...@hotmail.com Visite: www.iagente.com.br Em 07/01/2013, às 14:47, Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-us...@dukhovni.org> escreveu: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:37:03PM -0200, Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE wrote: > >> I've done something very similar. > > If you want help, please take some time to read and follow the > advice you receive completely and accurately. "Similar" is another > way of saying "incorrect". > >> I created different named transports for specific domains and >> have all domains I need a special treatment to use this named >> transport. > > To achieve a total concurrency limit across multiple destination > domains, you must specify a common nexthop, not just a common > transport. > >> So since I'm using Postfix + MySQL, I have a transport table with >> all domains and destination transport. Its quite the same thing >> you're proposing. > > No, it is not, since it leaves out the common nexthop which > consolidates the queues for all the domains. > >> Yet, I'm still with the same problem. > > Do take the time to follow advice completely and accurately. > >> So in the real life, I have about 10.000 domains that are hosted in >> the same hosting company. This company has a rigid control of their >> resources. > > Your best bet is to get whitelisted by the receiving system for a higher > throughput limit. > > If your average input message rate for these domains falls below the > current cap, and you're just trying to smooth out the spikes, the > advice I gate is correct, if you're willing to listen. > >> Is there anything else I can do to have a better control of my throughput? > > Understand that Postfix queues are per transport/nexthop, not merely > per transport. To schedule mail via a specific provider as a single > stream (queue), specify an explicit nexthop for all domains that > transit that provider. Since you're already using an explicit > transport, it is easy to append the appropriate nexthop. > >> Any help would be very appreciated. > > Ideally, you will not dismiss help when it is given. > > -- > Viktor.
