Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Postfix newbie question...

Expand Messages
  • Jan Bakuwel
    Hoi Victor, Thanks for the quick answer! ... You have started to answer my next question to the list already :-) I was hoping to learn about the mechanisms
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hoi Victor,

      Thanks for the quick answer!

      > Sounds like a job for UUCP (over TCP). The SMTP delivery agent in Postfix
      > is not really suitable for intermittent connectivity, and flushing the
      > deferred queue does not always succeed in getting all the queued mail
      > to be tried immediately.

      You have started to answer my next question to the list already :-)

      I was hoping to learn about the mechanisms before having to dig into
      UUCP (ie. one step at a time). We'll need to use something like UUCP
      (currently we're using serialmail with qmail which is really fast &
      efficient) due to the high latency of the satellite connection (smtp is
      out-of-the-question).

      > The mail to the ships is also best queued to UUCP.

      Ideally the mail to the ships first arrives on the "ships buddy" ashore:
      the office server. In other words, the office server should use UUCP to
      get the mail to the ships but the other MTAs on our WAN should be able
      to use smtp to deliver it to the office server.

      Is that what you're saying here?

      ...snap...

      > This is a configuration error. Specify a suitable remote nexthop in the
      > transport table (the hostname or IP address of ship1), but UUCP is better.
      >
      >> I have no idea how to tell Postfix where it can find the ship1.xxx
      >> server... (no idea where I can do that).
      >
      > smtp:[ship1.xxx]

      Now it says "ondemand". Its either ondemand or smtp:..... both are not
      possible.

      > but UUCP is better...

      Guess I'll have to bite the bullet and start reading up on UUCP...

      Thanks!

      brgds,
      Jan


      --

      'A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.'
      -- Bertrand de Jouvenal

      ----

      Electronic Technology Coordinator
      Ships Unit
      Greenpeace International
      Ottho Heldringstraat 5
      1066 AZ AMSTERDAM
      Netherlands (MET)

      direct +31 (0)20 7182084
      fax +31 (0)20 5148151
      reception +31 (0)20 5148150
      email jan.bakuwel&int.greenpeace.org
      private jan.bakuwel&hccnet.nl
      (replace & by @ in the emailaddress)
    • Victor Duchovni
      ... Sorry, ondemand is just as valid. The syntax is transportname:nexthop. ... Yes, or perhaps batch smtp, but I have never seen a bsmtp server. Postfix can
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 06:34:16PM +0200, Jan Bakuwel wrote:

        > >>I have no idea how to tell Postfix where it can find the ship1.xxx
        > >>server... (no idea where I can do that).
        > >
        > > smtp:[ship1.xxx]
        >
        > Now it says "ondemand". Its either ondemand or smtp:..... both are not
        > possible.

        Sorry, ondemand is just as valid. The syntax is transportname:nexthop.

        > >but UUCP is better...
        >
        > Guess I'll have to bite the bullet and start reading up on UUCP...

        Yes, or perhaps batch smtp, but I have never seen a bsmtp server. Postfix
        can drive the spooling client (sample transport definition is in
        master.cf), but does not implement the de-spooler or the server.

        In either case (UUCP or batch SMTP, whichever is easier to implement)
        you have to configure all the non-Postfix pieces. Postfix just adds
        messages to the spool, and forgets about them forever.

        --
        Viktor.

        Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
        Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

        To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
        http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
        <mailto:majordomo@...?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

        If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
        send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
        "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
      • mouss
        ... a question here. wouldn t it be better for the OP to have another protocol instead of smtp/uucp? a compressed protocol which transfers as needed seems to
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 31, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Victor Duchovni wrote:
          > On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 06:34:16PM +0200, Jan Bakuwel wrote:
          >
          >>>> I have no idea how to tell Postfix where it can find the ship1.xxx
          >>>> server... (no idea where I can do that).
          >>> smtp:[ship1.xxx]
          >> Now it says "ondemand". Its either ondemand or smtp:..... both are not
          >> possible.
          >
          > Sorry, ondemand is just as valid. The syntax is transportname:nexthop.
          >
          >>> but UUCP is better...
          >> Guess I'll have to bite the bullet and start reading up on UUCP...
          >
          > Yes, or perhaps batch smtp, but I have never seen a bsmtp server. Postfix
          > can drive the spooling client (sample transport definition is in
          > master.cf), but does not implement the de-spooler or the server.
          >
          > In either case (UUCP or batch SMTP, whichever is easier to implement)
          > you have to configure all the non-Postfix pieces. Postfix just adds
          > messages to the spool, and forgets about them forever.
          >

          a question here. wouldn't it be better for the OP to have another
          protocol instead of smtp/uucp? a compressed protocol which transfers as
          needed seems to be the right way. or am I wrong?
        • Victor Duchovni
          ... In what way would this differ from UUCP or Batch SMTP? The key problem is multiplexing and demultiplexing multiple messages onto intermitted on-demand
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 31, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 12:07:28AM +0200, mouss wrote:

            > >Yes, or perhaps batch smtp, but I have never seen a bsmtp server. Postfix
            > >can drive the spooling client (sample transport definition is in
            > >master.cf), but does not implement the de-spooler or the server.
            > >
            > >In either case (UUCP or batch SMTP, whichever is easier to implement)
            > >you have to configure all the non-Postfix pieces. Postfix just adds
            > >messages to the spool, and forgets about them forever.
            > >
            >
            > a question here. wouldn't it be better for the OP to have another
            > protocol instead of smtp/uucp? a compressed protocol which transfers as
            > needed seems to be the right way. or am I wrong?

            In what way would this differ from UUCP or Batch SMTP? The key problem
            is multiplexing and demultiplexing multiple messages onto intermitted
            on-demand sessions. UUCP is very good at that. One can even run UUCP

            Are you aware of some additional software in this space?
            over stunnel for stronger authentication and privacy of the channel.

            --
            Viktor.

            Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
            Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

            To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
            http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
            <mailto:majordomo@...?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

            If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
            send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
            "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
          • mouss
            ... I was thinking of an script-abuse of scp/gzip.
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Victor Duchovni wrote:
              >
              > In what way would this differ from UUCP or Batch SMTP? The key problem
              > is multiplexing and demultiplexing multiple messages onto intermitted
              > on-demand sessions. UUCP is very good at that. One can even run UUCP
              >
              > Are you aware of some additional software in this space?
              > over stunnel for stronger authentication and privacy of the channel.
              >

              I was thinking of an script-abuse of scp/gzip.
            • Jan Bakuwel
              Hi Victor, Mouss, ... The most important thing for us is a protocol that deals well with high latency connections. SMTP is not what we need ( hello? , yes ,
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 1 1:53 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Victor, Mouss,

                >> a question here. wouldn't it be better for the OP to have another
                >> protocol instead of smtp/uucp? a compressed protocol which transfers as
                >> needed seems to be the right way. or am I wrong?

                The most important thing for us is a protocol that deals well with high
                latency connections. SMTP is not what we need ("hello?", "yes", "would
                you like an email?", "sure why not", "are you feeling fine today?", "of
                course", "well how about one email?", "yeah I can deal with that", etc etc).

                Those kind of conversations over high latency links are really expensive...

                > In what way would this differ from UUCP or Batch SMTP? The key problem
                > is multiplexing and demultiplexing multiple messages onto intermitted
                > on-demand sessions. UUCP is very good at that. One can even run UUCP

                Other things we don't want is DNS lookups, email deliveries to the
                Internet etc... what we do need is the ability to just to throw a
                "bucket" of all pending emails both ways, then disconnect and the MTAs
                on both sides will sort out the email at their convenience.

                > Are you aware of some additional software in this space?
                > over stunnel for stronger authentication and privacy of the channel.

                There's no need to worry about the privacy of the channel since all
                traffic goes thru an encrypted and compressed tunnel.

                I guess UUCP would be the way to go (but must admit I need to read up on
                it)... or would you recommend to also study BSMTP (haven't worked with
                BSMTP either).

                cheers,
                Jan

                --

                'A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.'
                -- Bertrand de Jouvenal

                ----

                Electronic Technology Coordinator
                Ships Unit
                Greenpeace International
                Ottho Heldringstraat 5
                1066 AZ AMSTERDAM
                Netherlands (MET)

                direct +31 (0)20 7182084
                fax +31 (0)20 5148151
                reception +31 (0)20 5148150
                email jan.bakuwel&int.greenpeace.org
                private jan.bakuwel&hccnet.nl
                (replace & by @ in the emailaddress)
              • Victor Duchovni
                ... http://jimsun.linxnet.com/jdp/uucp_over_tcp/index.html I am not seeing too many actively maintained bsmtp projects, what is the state of the art in this
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 1 8:41 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 11:53:47AM +0200, Jan Bakuwel wrote:

                  > I guess UUCP would be the way to go (but must admit I need to read up on
                  > it)... or would you recommend to also study BSMTP (haven't worked with
                  > BSMTP either).

                  http://jimsun.linxnet.com/jdp/uucp_over_tcp/index.html

                  I am not seeing too many actively maintained bsmtp projects, what
                  is the state of the art in this space?

                  --
                  Viktor.

                  Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
                  Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

                  To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
                  http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
                  <mailto:majordomo@...?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

                  If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
                  send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
                  "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.