Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread SysAdmin EM
Hello, I think I understand that the "queue_run_delay" parameter is used to retry an email. Aug 4 12:19:23 smarthost03-ded postfix/qmgr[11588]: 68E2A18001AF1: from=< ju...@jorgeloinaz.com>, size=131840, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Aug 4 12:19:26 smarthost03-ded postfix/smtp[14720]: 68E2A18001AF1: ho

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 12:26:03PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote: > I think I understand that the "queue_run_delay" parameter is used to retry > an email. > > Aug 4 12:19:26 smarthost03-ded postfix/smtp[14720]: 68E2A18001AF1: > host mx8.webfaction.com[185.20.49.163] said: > 450 4.2.0 : Recipient

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread SysAdmin EM
El mar., 4 de ago. de 2020 a la(s) 13:13, Viktor Dukhovni ( postfix-us...@dukhovni.org) escribió: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 12:26:03PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote: > > > I think I understand that the "queue_run_delay" parameter is used to > retry > > an email. > > > > Aug 4 12:19:26 smarthost03-ded

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread Wietse Venema
SysAdmin EM: > El mar., 4 de ago. de 2020 a la(s) 13:13, Viktor Dukhovni ( > postfix-us...@dukhovni.org) escribi?: > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 12:26:03PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote: > > > > > I think I understand that the "queue_run_delay" parameter is used to > > retry > > > an email. > > > > > >

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 02:37:22PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote: > > No, the message never went back into the queue, since it was delivered > > on the first attempt. The second MX host tried did not enforce > > greylisting. > > Any recommendation to avoid retrying the second mx? in some cases when >

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread SysAdmin EM
Thank you very much everyone for the responses. So I think that for this case I have no solution, I will continue investigating thanks El mar., 4 de ago. de 2020 a la(s) 15:03, Viktor Dukhovni ( postfix-us...@dukhovni.org) escribió: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 02:37:22PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote:

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:19:27PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote: > Thank you very much everyone for the responses. > > So I think that for this case I have no solution, I will continue > investigating thanks My take is that rather than "no solution", what you don't have is a "problem". Please consid

Re: Connection Caching Per-Destination

2020-08-04 Thread Wietse Venema
Wietse Venema: > There is a rough idea of how to enforce strict connection counts > when connection caching is turned on. But it would not help in your > case, where the number of competing domains is 100x the number of > allowed concurrent connections. Under those conditions the feature > would be

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread SysAdmin EM
El mar., 4 de ago. de 2020 a la(s) 15:25, Viktor Dukhovni ( postfix-us...@dukhovni.org) escribió: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:19:27PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote: > > Thank you very much everyone for the responses. > > > > So I think that for this case I have no solution, I will continue > > investi

Re: Greylisted for 300 seconds and queue_run_delay

2020-08-04 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:47:35PM -0300, SysAdmin EM wrote: > > If you do believe there's actually a problem, i.e. something actually > > goes wrong as a result of trying to delivery 4XX failures on a second MX > > host, please explain what it is that does not work the way it should. > > I think