All,

Is there any way to have any messages that are BCC'd go to a different
mail queue? Ideally, the To: message gets sent to one mail queue and
the BCC messages gets sent to another.

On a related note, what about messages with different Precedence
headers? It seems the header by itself isn't enough and we may need to
put them in separate queues.

Thanks

On 03/19/08 15:45, HRileyBSG@gmail.com wrote:
> On a related note, what about messages with different Precedence
> headers? It seems the header by itself isn't enough and we may need to
> put them in separate queues.

Make sure your (de)queuing method is precedence aware.



Grant. . . .

On Mar 19, 4:12 pm, Grant Taylor <gtay...@riverviewtech.net> wrote:
> On 03/19/08 15:45, HRiley...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On a related note, what about messages with different Precedence
> > headers? It seems the header by itself isn't enough and we may need to
> > put them in separate queues.
>
> Make sure your (de)queuing method is precedence aware.
>
> Grant. . . .

How would I do that? I didn't know that was even an option that could
be disabled. I'm using the standard sendmail queue runner.

On 03/19/08 16:16, HRileyBSG@gmail.com wrote:
> How would I do that? I didn't know that was even an option that could
> be disabled. I'm using the standard sendmail queue runner.

I don't know exactly how off the top of my head (or I would have
included it in my last message).

Look in to the various queue sorting options. Some honor priority /
precedence and some do not. I'm also not sure what Sendmail's default is.



Grant. . . .

On Mar 19, 4:26 pm, Grant Taylor <gtay...@riverviewtech.net> wrote:
> I don't know exactly how off the top of my head (or I would have
> included it in my last message).
>
> Look in to the various queue sorting options. Some honor priority /
> precedence and some do not. I'm also not sure what Sendmail's default is.
>
> Grant. . . .

Yeah, the QueueSortOrder may be what you're thinking of. By default
(which is where it's at now), it goes by priority, which takes
Precedence into account. One of the things I'm looking for is a way to
get those messages with a "special-delivery" precedence into a
different queue so there's no way that the other messages can delay
the "special-delivery" ones.

Thanks,

Hugh

On 3/19/2008 4:40 PM, HRileyBSG@gmail.com wrote:
> Yeah, the QueueSortOrder may be what you're thinking of. By default
> (which is where it's at now), it goes by priority, which takes
> Precedence into account. One of the things I'm looking for is a way
> to get those messages with a "special-delivery" precedence into a
> different queue so there's no way that the other messages can delay
> the "special-delivery" ones.

Ya, that's what I'm thinking of.

I'm sure you could do a custom rule that will pick which queue a message
is placed in to based on a header. That is probably your best bet at
this point.



Grant. . . .

On Mar 19, 7:09 pm, Grant Taylor <gtay...@riverviewtech.net> wrote:
> On 3/19/2008 4:40 PM, HRiley...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Yeah, the QueueSortOrder may be what you're thinking of. By default
> > (which is where it's at now), it goes by priority, which takes
> > Precedence into account. One of the things I'm looking for is a way
> > to get those messages with a "special-delivery" precedence into a
> > different queue so there's no way that the other messages can delay
> > the "special-delivery" ones.
>
> Ya, that's what I'm thinking of.
>
> I'm sure you could do a custom rule that will pick which queue a message
> is placed in to based on a header. That is probably your best bet at
> this point.
>
> Grant. . . .

That's kind of what I figured, but I don't know how to do that. My
brain tends to melt every time I try to learn how to do rules.

HRileyBSG@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 19, 4:26 pm, Grant Taylor <gtay...@riverviewtech.net> wrote:
>> I don't know exactly how off the top of my head (or I would have
>> included it in my last message).
>>
>> Look in to the various queue sorting options. Some honor priority /
>> precedence and some do not. I'm also not sure what Sendmail's default is.
>>
>> Grant. . . .
>
> Yeah, the QueueSortOrder may be what you're thinking of. By default
> (which is where it's at now), it goes by priority, which takes
> Precedence into account. One of the things I'm looking for is a way to
> get those messages with a "special-delivery" precedence into a
> different queue so there's no way that the other messages can delay
> the "special-delivery" ones.

Typically most messages are delivered during initial "at once" delivery
attempt. Typically sendmail delivers 95%+ messages to non grey-listing
destinations "at once".
What you "investigate" should be a "non issue" unless you face:
* very heavy outgoing email load
* not rare enough "periods of delivery problems"
* you MUST guarantee fast delivery after "periods of delivery problems"

I am under impression that you have chosen "sub optimal" path to fix
your "problem".

Do you have some problems with "at once" deliveries?
What is typical size of your sendmail queue?

--
[pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi@priv.onet.pl : anfi@xl.wp.pl
Open-Sendmail: http://open-sendmail.sourceforge.net/
An honest tale speeds best being plainly told.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"

On Mar 20, 3:52 am, Andrzej Adam Filip <a...@onet.eu> wrote:
> Typically most messages are delivered during initial "at once" delivery
> attempt. Typically sendmail delivers 95%+ messages to non grey-listing
> destinations "at once".

I understand that. However, we had to switch to a queue-only method
due to the nature of our situation. Our clients send large number of
emails out and those emails are typically BCC'd to the domain of the
original sender. The time it takes those emails to be delivered
doesn't matter that much (hours later is fine). However, our clients
also send out test messages which need to be delivered within a few
minutes. The big problem we come across is that we very easily hit the
limit on the recipient server for connections per minute with those
BCC'd messages, so the test messages get deferred along with the
others. What I want is for sendmail to treat those test messages
differently. We have tagged those emails with Precedence headers to
move things in the direction we want, but it doesn't seem to be
enough.

> What you "investigate" should be a "non issue" unless you face:
> * very heavy outgoing email load
> * not rare enough "periods of delivery problems"
> * you MUST guarantee fast delivery after "periods of delivery problems"

3 for 3.

> I am under impression that you have chosen "sub optimal" path to fix
> your "problem"

Wouldn't surprise me.
..
> Do you have some problems with "at once" deliveries?

Yep. See above.

> What is typical size of your sendmail queue?

On busy days at peak times, it can be 10-20 thousand. And we're only
expecting it to grow further.

HRileyBSG@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 20, 3:52 am, Andrzej Adam Filip <a...@onet.eu> wrote:
>> Typically most messages are delivered during initial "at once" delivery
>> attempt. Typically sendmail delivers 95%+ messages to non grey-listing
>> destinations "at once".
>
> I understand that. However, we had to switch to a queue-only method
> due to the nature of our situation. Our clients send large number of
> emails out and those emails are typically BCC'd to the domain of the
> original sender. The time it takes those emails to be delivered
> doesn't matter that much (hours later is fine). However, our clients
> also send out test messages which need to be delivered within a few
> minutes. The big problem we come across is that we very easily hit the
> limit on the recipient server for connections per minute with those
> BCC'd messages, so the test messages get deferred along with the
> others. What I want is for sendmail to treat those test messages
> differently. We have tagged those emails with Precedence headers to
> move things in the direction we want, but it doesn't seem to be
> enough.
>
>> What you "investigate" should be a "non issue" unless you face:
>> * very heavy outgoing email load
>> * not rare enough "periods of delivery problems"
>> * you MUST guarantee fast delivery after "periods of delivery problems"
>
> 3 for 3.
>
>> I am under impression that you have chosen "sub optimal" path to fix
>> your "problem"
>
> Wouldn't surprise me.
> .
>> Do you have some problems with "at once" deliveries?
>
> Yep. See above.
>
>> What is typical size of your sendmail queue?
>
> On busy days at peak times, it can be 10-20 thousand. And we're only
> expecting it to grow further.

I would suggest you using separate queue groups for top 20-100
destinations and multiple queue directories in default queue.

Start with:
* creating queue groups for top 5 destinations/clients
* increasing number of directories in default queue
[ initially 4 if you do not use them ]

http://www.sendmail.org/m4/features.html#queuegroup

I would bet that fine tuning number of queue directories in default
queue and creating per top destinations would reduce 80%+ of your
problem - follow "standard path" *first*.

--
[pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi@priv.onet.pl : anfi@xl.wp.pl
Open-Sendmail: http://open-sendmail.sourceforge.net/
An optimist is a guy that has never had much experience.
-- Don Marquis