Richard Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My other suspicion is that there's a chance that my one server will
> try a couple of dozen connections to the same remote host at the same time.
> (This is an issue in itself!)
Why is this an issue? If the remote host can handle 100 inboun
> > try a couple of dozen connections to the same remote host
> at the same time.
> > (This is an issue in itself!)
>
> Why is this an issue? If the remote host can handle 100 inbound
> connections, you should be able to open 100 connections to
> them, inject
> your messages, and close the con
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:09:25AM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> I've also noticed that if qmail tries to deliver (for example) 50
> messages to one host concurrently, perhaps 2 will get through. The rest will
> be retried, but unfortunately they tend to get retried at much the same
> ti
> From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:09:25AM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > I've also noticed that if qmail tries to deliver (for example) 50
> > messages to one host concurrently, perhaps 2 will get through. The rest
will
> > be retried, but u
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
[snip]
> Read what I wrote again. It IS qmail's fault. One role I use qmail
> for is to accept mail which is then passed on to an exchange server on the
> same network. Here's an example of what can happen ...
>
> If t
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:09:25AM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > > I've also noticed that if qmail tries to deliver (for example) 50
> > > messages to one host co
> From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
>
> > When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> > process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able
to go
> > off and do other thin
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:17:22PM +0100, Richard Underwood allegedly wrote:
> > And if you don't like this behaviour: write a patch (or find one), or
> > stop using qmail. Nobody is forcing you to use qmail.
> >
> Perhaps, but using this list to tell people (often quite forcefully)
> that
> From: MarkD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Has this been discussed before? Yes. Endlessly. Check the
> archives. You are breaking no new ground here at all.
>
I'm sure it has - it's an important issue.
> If you want to be truly helpful, you might want to read the archives
> on this ma
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:02:10PM +0200, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > Why are you kicking qmail-send? That should never be necessary in a
> > production environment.
>
> Apparently, your "production environment" does not involve situations when
> you
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:16:00PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> > process to get it to deliver the queue. At this point I should be able to go
> > off and do
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:05:12PM +1200, Jason Haar allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:16:00PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Richard Underwood wrote:
> > > When the exchange server comes back up, I kick the qmail-send
> > > process to get
Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is absolutely necessary.
Why can't you just run qmail-tcpok and send qmail-send an ALRM?
-Dave
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:04:50PM +1200, Jason Haar wrote:
> We have exactly the same issue here. Exchange goes down. Mail backs up on
> Qmail servers. Exchange comes back up. USERS ARE TOLD ITS WORKING AGAIN.
> Users then wonder why it takes up to 2 hours for queued mail to get to them.
> USERS
14 matches
Mail list logo
