On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:34:24AM +1100, Brett Randall wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > How about giving them numbers?
>
> See? :) This is the kind of unexpected response which is good to
> gather up before we talk to Yahoo... By the way, I'm not against
> Yahoo, I just think their sysadmins need a good kick up the rear and
> maybe even a good kick out...
Me neither. But whatever is going on in there, I hope they're aware of it.
If not... well... We could give them a wake up call...
Values like these:
--------
bash# egrep
"128.11.69.53|128.11.22.91|216.136.129.15|128.11.68.59|216.115.107.17|128.11.22.89|216.136.129.16|216.136.129.17|128.11.69.54|216.136.129.18|128.11.69.55|128.11.22.90"
/servers/mail2/logs/qmail/* | egrep "connection_died|temporarily_unavailable" | wc -l
2213
bash# egrep
"128.11.69.53|128.11.22.91|216.136.129.15|128.11.68.59|216.115.107.17|128.11.22.89|216.136.129.16|216.136.129.17|128.11.69.54|216.136.129.18|128.11.69.55|128.11.22.90"
/servers/mail2/logs/qmail/* | grep "accepted_message" | wc -l
429
--------
are NOT good. This shows a 19.38% delivery success rate. (OK, I probably
have multiple failures per message. But still, it's a 5 connections to 1
delivery rate.) How are we supposed to explain this to our customers?
"Blame Yahoo!"?
RC
--
+-------------------
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87 21 83 DB 28 DE 03 42
| Novis - Engenharia ISP / Rede Técnica
| Pç. Duque Saldanha, 1, 7º E / 1050-094 Lisboa / Portugal
| Tel: +351 2 1010 0000 - Fax: +351 2 1010 4459
PGP signature
