[Mailman-Users] Throttling output
brad at stop.mail-abuse.org
Wed Jun 14 00:36:01 CEST 2006
At 11:38 PM +0200 2006-06-13, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> I think that this would require a second MTA instance -- the
> You want that probably anyway since you probably don't want your MTA
> accept 22.000 emails on a public interface in one rush (and I actually
> don't remember out of my head how mailman really inject mails. 1 mail
> with a long list of rcpt-to:?).
Mailman can do that, depending on how you configure the
>> first instance of sendmail (or whatever MTA) would simply take
>> everything that Mailman gives it and then store that in the queue.
>> This would be different from a normal sendmail (or other MTA)
>> configuration, where immediate delivery would normally be attempted.
> Yes. But "normally" you don't throw 22.000 emails at once on your MTA.
> And if you do this "normally", you shouldn't need any throttling or
> other special behaviour at all - just enough hardware.
>> Then, additional queue runners are called to start processing
>> that queue and pushing those messages out, but they go through an
>> additional instance of sendmail, where the throttling milter is used.
> Just limit/throttle the MTA itself (sendmail has several options for
> this like "number of proceses", etc. and I assume that other MTAs like
> postfix, exim, qmail allow this too in similar ways).
Yeah, but so far as I know, none of those mechanisms control the
number of messages that are sent per period of time. They control
the number of a given set of processes you can have at any given
period of time, but that has only the smallest impact on the number
of messages sent per hour.
>> You would also need to make sure that the first instance of
>> sendmail (or whatever MTA) is not configured to generate Delivery
>> Status Notices (DSNs) for delayed messages, because you know for a
>> fact that some messages are going to be delayed for a significant
>> period of time, and you don't want those kinds of warnings clouding
>> the picture for Mailman.
> Of course. But the standard/usual delay of 4 hours or so should be large
> enough though (and I don't see a problem in raising that limit).
I'm not convinced. If you've got a list of 22,000 recipients and
a limit of 1000 recipients per hour, it's probably going to take a
lot longer than four hours to get out all those messages.
I do remain convinced that if you're trying to do throttling
because your provider requires it, that you are most definitely using
the wrong provider.
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
LOPSA member since December 2005. See <http://www.lopsa.org/>.
More information about the Mailman-Users