Re: Looping messages

[Andy Poling <andy@realbig.com>]

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Andy Poling wrote:
> > If you have 4 mail hosts then you ought to have a postmaster whose job it is
> > to monitor those 4 systems and read mail to the postmaster/postoffice on
> > each of them.
[...]
> > Servers need to be monitored for errors/failures - anybody
> > who tells you otherwise is probably trying to sell you a server...
[...]
>   What is better, Zmailer requiring lots of admin intervention, or little
> admin invention?

When the system is unable to deliver mail, it could be for different
reasons, some of which could easily prevent it from sending the error msgs
to a remote postmaster.  A simple example:  the SMTP TA cannot be run for
whatever reason.

It doesn't really take any more time to, e.g. read four mailboxes than to
read one mailbox four times as big.  1000 msgs are 10000 messages, whether
they're in 1 mailbox or 20.  

And if they're in 20 seperate mailboxes it may enable you to more quickly
identify a problem trend.


>   Then why do you object to something that would make Zmailer more robust,
> and require less intervention?

For the same reason I gave above.  When an error occurs, you need to assume
the worst and make it as easy as possible for the software to notify you.

If Matti wants to tackle this then more power to him - I'm simply pointing
out that you are using a sub-optimal configuration that could easily
(already has) result(ed) in you not being properly notified of a problem.  I
won't let myself get into such a situation - I read the various postmaster
mailboxes individually (though sometimes via remote protocols such as IMAP).

-Andy

(this sig left intentionally blank - too many hats for one sig)