Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > First issue... logging. When we had only one possible action, we > logged it. Now that we have more than one possibility, do we want to > log the whole 5+ lines for each action we take, or is one log entry > with a line for each delivery action enough? Something like this: > > Date: Sat Nov 8 13:11:00 CST 2003 > From: Dr. Seuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subj: Star-bellied Sneetches! > Actn: OK (from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok, deliver=&[EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Actn: DELIVER (from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok, deliver=&[EMAIL PROTECTED])
I personally vote for the whole 5+ lines for each action we take. Yes, it's a bit redundant, but it's also more clear I think. The above example with multiple Actn: lines is confusing to me. There are other situations where we do multiple entries rather than combining things into a single entry, so this would follow current behavior better as well I think. TMDA has clearly outgrown the current logging format, and this something that will be reworked in 1.1, so I don't think this is a crucial decision at this point. If one method will make other portions of the implementation easier for you, go with that. > Second issue... What happens when we make a successful delivery but > a subsequent delivery fails? If we defer the message like we do > now, then the successful delivery will happen again, and > again... until the problem with the failed delivery is cleared up. > That's not good. This isn't good, but on the positive side, no messages will be lost. You just may end up with duplicate deliveries. > We could write this so that if the first delivery attempt fails, > i.e., if there have been no successful deliveries, we defer as we do > now. The problem only arises with a failure after a success. So in other words, the likelihood of a duplicate delivery will simply be reduced, not eliminated. > MTAs keep a message in the queue until it has been sent to all > recipients or has timed out. Obviously, they keep track of which > recipients have yet to accept the message. Are you sure? They could also just clone the message (N delivery instructions == N copies) so that each instance is handled like an independent delivery. I wonder if there is a way for us to do the same, without triggering every matching delivery instruction the next time the queue is run? > Another option is to attempt all deliveries and, if at least one is > successful, consider the message delivered. I don't like this one. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
