Per olof Ljungmark:
> Yes, thanks, agree on load distribution. In this case the problem is not
> the load, I was just contemplating ways not to trigger various
> (sometimes inaccurate) methods of spam filtering to complement what we
> already have, but what we already have should probably be enoug
Wietse Venema wrote:
> Per olof Ljungmark:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
>> it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
>
> No, this is inaccurate.
>
> In reality, Postfix writes recipients to the queue file in the
> order that it
Per olof Ljungmark:
> Hi,
>
> We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
> it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
No, this is inaccurate.
In reality, Postfix writes recipients to the queue file in the
order that it received them.
At DELIVERY TIME, th
Hi,
We host a few mailing lists and I noted that when the messages are cued,
it is done so in recipient-domain alphabetical order.
We already implemented restrictions on concurrency and number of
recipients per message not to trigger various filters at the receiving
end, and now I thought that ma
