> On Oct 13, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Tom Sommer wrote:
>
> The process limit would be an overall limit on the transport?
>
> Is there a way to limit the number of concurrent connections for each
> destination IP?
No. Postfix has no mechanism for that. The only entity with a
global view of the queu
On 2020-08-22 22:35, Wietse Venema wrote:
Wietse Venema:
Greg Sims:
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps = randmap:{r235,r236,r237,r238}
>
> selects transports at random for delivering email. Is it possible to
> schedule a set of transports using a round-robin discipline? This
man 5 tc
On 2020-09-01 00:28, @lbutlr wrote:
On 31 Aug 2020, at 10:08, Greg Sims wrote:
(1) continue to ignore the MaxConnection Messages/Deferrals
(2) reduce the number of processes per transport to 1
(3) reduce the number of outlook transports to 2
4) add a footer to mails going to outlook a
> On Sep 8, 2020, at 11:34 PM, Greg Sims wrote:
>
> Pardon my next question in advance. Will outlook.com reliably relay
> the message to recipients that do not have an outlook.com domain?
No. They'll reject "foreign" recipients. There are work-arounds,
but you should not go there. If your tr
> The FILTER action overrides the routing of all recipients of a
> message. For example, if one message has outlook and non-outlook
> recipients, then all recipients would be sent to outlook.com,
> including the non-outlook ones.
Pardon my next question in advance. Will outlook.com reliably relay
Greg Sims:
> I placed the following post from Wietse in our main.cf -- let's call
> this "mx_access":
>
> # There is a crude way to automatically group messages by destination
> # MX hosts, but that works only for the special case that all messages
> # have exactly one recipient or all recipients
I placed the following post from Wietse in our main.cf -- let's call
this "mx_access":
# There is a crude way to automatically group messages by destination
# MX hosts, but that works only for the special case that all messages
# have exactly one recipient or all recipients in the same domain.
#
#
> > Here are the stats from this morning:
> >
> > * email arrival rate: 1,000/minute
> > * outlook.com email sent: 7,113
> > * MaxConnections: 17
> These are perhaps a result of some domains hosted by outlook.com, but not
> included in your list of domains to route to the dedicated transport
On 31 Aug 2020, at 10:08, Greg Sims wrote:
> (1) continue to ignore the MaxConnection Messages/Deferrals
> (2) reduce the number of processes per transport to 1
> (3) reduce the number of outlook transports to 2
4) add a footer to mails going to outlook along the lines of :"messages to
out
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:08:02AM -0700, Greg Sims wrote:
> Here are the stats from this morning:
>
> * email arrival rate: 1,000/minute
> * outlook.com email sent: 7,113
> * MaxConnections: 17
Theseare perhaps a result of some domains hosted by outlook.com, but not
included in your list
Greg Sims:
> Here are the stats from this morning:
>
> * email arrival rate: 1,000/minute
> * outlook.com email sent: 7,113
> * MaxConnections: 17
>
> MaxConnections increases with the email arrival rate. It is consistent day
> to day at a given email arrival rate. We are currently runnin
Here are the stats from this morning:
* email arrival rate: 1,000/minute
* outlook.com email sent: 7,113
* MaxConnections: 17
MaxConnections increases with the email arrival rate. It is consistent day
to day at a given email arrival rate. We are currently running four
outlook transports o
I built a maillog post processor that looks for 'status=sent' for
realy=.*\.outlook.com and collects to=<.*@(.*)> which is the domain
portion of the email addresses. These domains are placed in a
frequency array and sorted from highest to lowest. The highest
frequency is hotmail.com as you would e
Greg Sims:
> Here are the stats from this morning:
> * email arrival rate: 250/minute
> * outlook.com email sent: 7,088
> * MaxConnections: 6
If this happens 6 times, why not let Postfix retry delivery later?
Wietse
Wietse Venema:
> Greg Sims:
> > sender_dependent_default_transport_maps = randmap:{r235,r236,r237,r238}
> >
> > selects transports at random for delivering email. Is it possible to
> > schedule a set of transports using a round-robin discipline? This
>
> man 5 tcp_table
> man 5 socketmap_table
>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 08:11:41AM -0700, Greg Sims wrote:
> I have looked at a number of maillogs where we receive the 'exceeded
> the maximum number of connections' error from the outlook servers.
> [...]
> I conclude that outlook is actually complaining about the number of
> connections that ar
I have looked at a number of maillogs where we receive the 'exceeded
the maximum number of connections' error from the outlook servers.
The following is very telling. The first nine are reformatted
'status=sent' records followed by a 'status=deferred' from outlook. I
obscured the email address an
Greg Sims:
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps = randmap:{r235,r236,r237,r238}
>
> selects transports at random for delivering email. Is it possible to
> schedule a set of transports using a round-robin discipline? This
man 5 tcp_table
man 5 socketmap_table
and implement a server that res
18 matches
Mail list logo
