Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:47:22PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > The Postfix "sitting there doing nothing" problem is not new, that's > what got me on the list posting comments and patches in June of 2001. For the record, it was July. http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2001-07/

Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:40:38AM +0200, Patrik Rak wrote: > On 15.5.2013 20:30, Wietse Venema wrote: > > >Patrik appears to have a source of mail that will never be delivered. > >He does not want to run a huge number of daemons; that is just > >wasteful. Knowing that some mail will never clear

Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Wietse Venema
Patrik Rak: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > On 16.5.2013 13:13, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > You can try. I hope you can also document the result! Neither > > I'll do my best. Fortunately it seems this knob is pretty > straightforward to explain to the end users. > > > Victor

Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Patrik Rak
On 16.5.2013 13:13, Wietse Venema wrote: You can try. I hope you can also document the result! Neither I'll do my best. Fortunately it seems this knob is pretty straightforward to explain to the end users. Victor nor I have been able to fully absorb the subtle details of nqmgr in a reasona

Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Wietse Venema
Patrik Rak: > On 15.5.2013 20:30, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Patrik appears to have a source of mail that will never be delivered. > > He does not want to run a huge number of daemons; that is just > > wasteful. Knowing that some mail will never clear the queue, he just > > doesn't want such mail

Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Patrik Rak
On 15.5.2013 20:30, Wietse Venema wrote: Patrik appears to have a source of mail that will never be delivered. He does not want to run a huge number of daemons; that is just wasteful. Knowing that some mail will never clear the queue, he just doesn't want such mail to bog down other deliveries.

Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Patrik Rak
On 15.5.2013 19:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: My issue with 60:1 is not with the latency ratio, but with the assumption that there is an unlimited supply of such mail to soak up as many delivery agents as one may wish to add. In practice the input rate of such mail is finite, if the output rate (v

Re: Separate transport for retried recipients

2013-05-16 Thread Patrik Rak
On 15.5.2013 17:44, Wietse Venema wrote: What I recall is that queue lengths depend not only on AVERAGE arrival rates. The variations in arrival rates make a huge difference, as experienced daily with queues before ladies' bathrooms (yes I am aware that ladies, unlike email, don't back off expo