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

Re: Postfix newbie question...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Apr 1 1:53 AM
      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 2 of 9 , Apr 1 8:41 AM
        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.