Tomas Korbar: > Hi guys, > I created a new version of this feature which does not include > changes in connection management code. > Furthermore this new version adds configuration parameter > "-o smtp_srv_resolution_allowed=yes" which enables it, so > only users interested in SRV resolution can use it. > > Thanks for any review or help that you can provide.
Thanks, I'll check it out. Wietse > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 1:53 PM Tomas Korbar <tkor...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > Thanks for your opinions and hints. I will try to come up with > > a implementation that does not involve changes in > > Postfix connection management code. smtp process was > > the first place where I thought that this feature could be > > implemented. > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 11:56 AM Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > > > > > > Viktor Dukhovni: > > > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 05:06:22PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We're discussing support for an MUA-specific feature, not > > > > > > high-volime > > > > > > MTA-to-MTA support. Connection reuse is less important, as long as > > > > > > Postfix does not mix traffic with different authentication > > > > > > properties, > > > > > > and that is what SMTP_HOST_KEY is for. So if sharing is a consern, > > > > > > just add a "comes from SRV lookup" flag to the connection cache > > > > > > lookup key. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are keys along the lines of "domain:submission+srv" too clumsy? > > > > > > > > > > I meant TLS policy lookup keys (smtp_tls_policy_maps). The session > > > > > and > > > > > connection caches are already fine, since transport name is part of > > > > > the > > > > > cache key. > > > > > > > > Also, for the caches, in addition to not getting false positives from > > > > imprecise keys, we presumably actually want to get cache hits on the > > > > logical destination for connection reuse, which is less likely to happen > > > > if it splits into multiple separate nexthop values. > > > > > > Seriously, this is MUA submission, we don't need to optimize > > > connection reuse for that. > > > > > > > And perhaps reuse may not be appropriate when the logical nexthop > > > > destinations have different TLS policies, or different SASL settings, > > > > ... and yet share underlying submission servers. > > > > > > Some kind of grouping metadata can take care of that. > > > > > > Wietse > > > [ Attachment, skipping... ]