OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: RE: Some questions on postfix, SUMMARY
From: Karimov, Rashid (NBC, CNBC) (Rashid.Karimovnbc.com)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2000 - 13:30:04 CST

Wietse,

Thanx a bunch for your help and attention .

> > I think there is definitely a demand for a thing like this, may be
> > even just a fast routine (thread-safe would be great) one can call:
> >
> > maildrop_it(** recepients, *message_buffer)
>
> I prefer an open(), write() and close() routine instead. That allows
> one to submit messages that are larger than is convenient to keep
> in memory. Maybe it is because I am an old fart who grew up with
> machines with less than a megabyte of main memory.

Whatever way is easier for you. I was proposing the buffer because in our
case the messages are usually short - may be 2K top, and having the
maildrop_it() with the proposed signature would provide a clean separation
between message generation and dropping it for delivery ?

>
> > that one can use in a custom message generation program. If it is
> > a cross-platform (WinNT), it would be a real killer .
>
> I have no idea. My programming experience is limited to UNIX VMS
> DOS and a little bit of Windoze.

As long as format of the message is not OS and/or HW
specific(byte order for example),it wouldn't be a problem ?
Say, if a message file is generated on Windoze NT box, and then copied
into maildrop box on Unix, will it be delivered ?

> Queueing up a million files per hour is 300 files a second. With
> the present queue organization of one message per file, that requires
> a lot of disk spindles to share the load, and a persistent write
> cache that allows the system to sort disk writes for optimal speed.

We are using Veritas to stripe/mirror over a bunch of spindles.
I understand that I/O subsystem must be fast.

Extent-based file system (VFS as opposed to UFS), would not buy
as much, as it is whole buncha of smaller files, not a few large
ones.

Using memory-based FS (such as /tmp on Sol 2.6 for example), is
blazing fast, but has its drawbacks (if the system dies before
the generated messages are copied into more persistent storage).

> BTW did you notice that your word-wrapping algorithm sucks?

Is there a way in Outlook to make it wrap up 78 symbols ?
I am trying to keep the lines short ... sorry for
inconvenience.

>
> Postfix queue files have a very specific format, and if the file
> format does not match expectations, then they are rejected. The
> format is enforced by the Postfix queue file writing routines.

Can some1 share a file (short test message) from a maildrop
directory ? I am wondering what does it look like ...

I really think that adding this ability to postfix (ability
to generate lotsa messages in a hurry, with clear interface)
would make postfix even a better product.

Rashid

        Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
        the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.