Reid Sutherland:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 converted... ]
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>> I don't think that it is a good idea to fill up your machine with
> >>> programs that keep timing out again and again and again. Postfix
> >>> is not only about performance and security, but also about safety
> >>> (mail servers should be able to deal with problems and not require
> >>> a human babysitter).
> >>
> >> Understood, but if this condition is occurring, there must be delay or
> >> failure in another component of the system.
> >
> > Obviously, there is a failure of some kind, and absent a human
> > operator to click on OK/ABORT/RETRY, the mail system has to choose
> > a safe action.
> >
> > Unsafe actions lead to system congestion and human operators
> > having to unclog the toilet.
> >
>
>
> But it transfers the burden back onto the sender to recreate the message
> and hope it arrives. Their tension will grow each time it bounces back
> to them.
>
> The admin can monitor queue sizes and state to determine what's going
> on. They can also monitor the rest of the system to know why mail is
> piling up.
>
>
> > If you prefer a mail system that needs a babysitter, don't use
> > Postfix. I can't make recommendations about other mail systems.
> >
>
>
> Not asking for Postfix to babysit the problem, but to keep the already
> queued message if an internal pipe problem is detected.
>
> And no, I can't think of any other mail systems either. I accept the
> conditions of Postfix, just wanted to explain the problem we face.
>
> Thank you again for your time.
>
