Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check
- On 28 Aug 2013, at 13:06 , Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@...> wrote:
> I thought the smtpd_relay_restrictions would automatically allow the email to pass the RBLs, but this does not appear to be the case.You would have to check the RBLs *after* permit_sasl_authenticated, and you would have to permit_sasl_authenticated on any smtpd_*_restrictions (don't forget to check in master.cf also).
It was not, it could not be real. But in the roaring air he knew that
it was, for all who needed to believe, and in a belief so strong that
truth was not the same as fact... he knew that for now, and yesterday,
and tomorrow, both the thing, and the whole of the thing.
- On 8/30/2013 10:12 AM, Terry Gilsenan wrote:
> I am not talking about implementing SMTP on UDP, I am taking about the possibility of adding a side-channel for bulk data that would use UDP.I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. It seems there's a
far simpler solution to the described high latency low bandwidth
attachment transfer problem: TCP send/receive buffer size.
If all receiving systems advertised a sufficiently large receive buffer
and clients could match it, then this latency/bandwidth problem pretty
much evaporates. A 1MB buffer allows a 50MB attachment to be sent
requiring only 50 ACKs. Assuming the path is fairly reliable, which has
been your assumption in your UDP argument, then this is a far less
invasive solution with similar performance.
IIRC, not may years ago, a team comprised of personnel at Argonne and
CERN achieved sustained saturation of a 1 Gbps link between Chicago and
Geneva, using parallel FTP and an insanely large TCP buffer, like in the
multiple GB range. I'll have to dig it up.
This demonstrates that high bandwidth TCP over high latency links is