> Rafael Azevedo - IAGENTE: >> I agree with Reindl, I guess Witsie is now better understanding >> the problem here. > > Please take the effort to spell my name correctly.
Sorry about that Wietse. It was a typo mistake. I didn't intend to offend you. > When a site sends a small volume of mail, the existing Postfix > strategy is sufficient (skip a site after N connect/handshake errors, > don't treat a post-handshake error as a "stay away" signal). The > email will eventually get through. > > When a site sends a large volume of mail to a rate-limited destination, > 'we" believe that a stragegy based on a bursty send-suspend cycle > will perform worse than a strategy based on an uninterrupted flow. This will eventually block the sending server (ip), also helping to reduce the IP reputation because in average, the mail server is not sending emails all the time, then start suddenly sending huge volume makes it easy for servers to identify a spam source, when its not. > > Why does this difference matter? Once the sending rate drops under > rate at which mail enters the mail queue, all strategies become > equivalent to throwing away mail. I'm trying to understand what you said but it doesn't make any sense to me. Today, when I have a huge deferred queue, I just put them all on hold and about 4 to 6 hours later, release them all back to active queue and guess what, we get many messages to be sent successfully. The main problem on this "solution" (if we can say that) is when there are still coming new messages to be sent, which does not give the IP enough time to "breathe". > This is why bulk mailers should use a strategy based on an uninterrupted > flow, instead of relying on a bursty send-suspend cycle. My experience tells me that this will help to get blocked very easily. - Rafael
