Ok let me withdraw that whilst I think about it a bit harder. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stephenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:46 PM Subject: [PATCH] 550 handling (WAS multiple gateways possible?)
> I took another look at this issue and this time understood what you were > getting at about the SendFailedException Noel. > > here is another patch aimed at allowing the use of other configured servers > in the event that one rejects a relay. > > Tim > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:48 AM > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Re: multiple gateways possible? > > > > Tim, > > > > I reviewed this patch, and have incorporated a revision for testing into > the > > CVS for James v2. Please note that I did NOT incorporate the 550 check. > > Primarily I did not do so because I am not convinced that the 550 as > > presented would not interact quite badly with send partial. It seems to > me > > that 550 responses are going to come back packaged in a > SendFailedException. > > The current code was handling the special case of an IOException wrapped > in > > a MessagingException. > > > > I am not saying that the idea of going to another server in the case were > > one server in a set of possible addresses rejects a recipient isn't > > reasonable, but the execution of that idea in this patch does not appear > to > > be correct. > > > > The patch being posted also includes a requested change related to not > > incrementing the error count for each server, but rather incrementing the > > error count for each PASS through a set of servers. > > > > I tested these changes using the following configuration: > > > > <mailet match="All" class="RemoteDelivery"> > > <outgoing> file://var/mail/gateway/ </outgoing> > > <delayTime> 21600000 </delayTime> > > <maxRetries> 5 </maxRetries> > > <deliveryThreads> 5 </deliveryThreads> > > <gateway>192.168.1.1</gateway> > > <gateway>192.168.1.1:2525</gateway> > > <gateway>192.168.1.1:2526</gateway> > > <gatewayPort>25</gatewayPort> > > <debug>true</debug> > > </mailet> > > > > And logged the behavior as I incrementally shutdown all of the gateways, > and > > then brought one back up. > > > > PLEASE review the changes that I made. I'm also going to commit them to > > HEAD in a few minutes. > > > > --- Noel > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Stephenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 13:57 > > To: James Developers List > > Subject: [PATCH] Re: multiple gateways possible? > > > > > > OK let's try that again (attached). There didn't appear to be rules about > > the file format for the attachment, I used Unix style end of lines. > > > > About the 550 check: I included this in an attempt to minimise the change > in > > behaviour. If it is not there any failure that is not an IOException is > > deemed to apply to all servers in the gateway list so they are not tried. > > Since the exact reason for the failure appear not to be well understood > (at > > least by me) or are just broken as in your Notes example. I would prefer > to > > try all servers in the list in all failure cases, what do you think? > > Obviously this incurs a performance penalty in cases when the failure _is_ > > for a more generalised reason, which is presumably why the code is as it > is. > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
