Qmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821

To: Markus Stumpf <maex-lists-qmail@leo.org>
Subject: Re: Qmail is clearly out of compliance with RFC2821
From: Marc Perkel <marc@perkel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:17:48 -0800
Cc: qmail@list.cr.yp.to
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: gmail-qmail@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: sp.com.list@gmail.com
Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
In-reply-to: <20061127232253.GR22989@leo.org>
Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
References: <45676987.2050808@perkel.com> <456789E5.3000508@gatworks.com> <20061125.101809.193764004.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <45686D69.5040003@perkel.com> <20061127143127.GA29898@discworld.dyndns.org> <456B03BA.1060303@perkel.com> <456B5418.10708@blackpacket.net> <456B69D4.3080005@perkel.com> <20061127232253.GR22989@leo.org>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)


Markus Stumpf wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:42:28PM -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
  
What this says is that if you decide to have some limits that the limits 
should be set at 2 or more. Since Qmail doesn't have a configurable 
limit then the MUST part applies.
    

  
This document technically contradicts itself. Not written by a lawyer. As you can see in one place it says MUST and then gives an exception. Or it says REQUIRED but then another exception. So lets see what it really means

Read on in the same section:

   Although the capability to try multiple alternative addresses is
   required, 
Note REQUIRED.

specific installations may want to limit or disable the use
   of alternative addresses.  
I believe what it means here is that the capability is required but you might want to put limits on it because of resources.

The question of whether a sender should
   attempt retries using the different addresses of a multihomed host
   has been controversial.  The main argument for using the multiple
   addresses is that it maximizes the probability of timely delivery,
   and indeed sometimes the probability of any delivery; the counter-
   argument is that it may result in unnecessary resource use. 
This is what lawyers cal dictum. It's a discussion. The reason for trying all MX is timely delivery. The exception is resources. If for example you are running your server on a dialup connection at 56k you can make an exception because retries use up your limited bandwidth.

 Note
   that resource use is also strongly determined by the sending strategy
   discussed in section 4.5.4.1.

Now look at "4.5.4.1 Sending Strategy"

   The sender MUST delay retrying a particular destination after one
   attempt has failed.  
By destination this means host. That means you don't keep hammering the same host over and over. But it does not mean that you don't try other servers. If it did then there would be no point to multiple MX records.

In general, the retry interval SHOULD be at
   least 30 minutes; however, more sophisticated and variable strategies
   will be beneficial when the SMTP client can determine the reason for
   non-delivery.
  
Exim has a nice timing feature where after a number of hours the retry interval gets lomger.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>