[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-358?page=comments#action_12330697 ]
Arjan Veenstra commented on JAMES-358: -------------------------------------- I do understand the optional part, and i don't really object against this patch. I was mainly trying to find optimal instead of optional. And I do believe there is room for improvement (not that it should stop this from getting implemented), e.g. having a setting like <maxIPsPerMX>2</maxIPsPerMX> whould provide a bit better fine-tuning. But finding ways to not connect to adresses wich allready have been tried whould be even better. Also finding ways to delivery going even when some mails stall might solve the performance problem without reducing the change of succesfull delivery. I was thinking in the direction of more parralelization and perhaps some kind of a 'this address fails' cache. Having said that, the above patch is the only thing wich improves the situation and is easy to implement, all other options will require way more work and i do understand you don't want to wait for that. Actually, IMHO, having ideas should never block working code, but working code should also never stop idea's ;-) > Too many RemoteDelivery attempts with many mx and many ip > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JAMES-358 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-358 > Project: James > Type: Improvement > Components: DNSServer > Versions: 2.2.0 > Reporter: Stefano Bagnara > Assignee: Stefano Bagnara > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 2.3.0 > Attachments: DNSServer.java.singleIPperMX.diff, > james-config.xml.singleIPperMX.diff > > Take a domain with 5 mx servers each one with 6 associated ips. James > currently try to connect to each MX server even if the first server say > "5.1.1 user unknown", but even worst, james try to connect to each IP of each > MX server. > I think that james should only check each MX server once, at a random IP > address from the IP list for that mx hostname. > The permanent user error issue would be only a further optimization but the > IP issue is probably against the RFC specifications. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
