Re: parallel smtp sessions to same target ost

[mea@nic.funet.fi]

> Morning, oh, gosh, time flies on Friday -- goodday,
> 
> Once mea@nic.funet.fi wrote:
> >	We could solve this by having a way to build separate threads
> >	based not only on channel+host pair, but also to some other
> >	criteria -- like size-bins ?  How you would configure them ?
> 
> 	Perfect solution.
> 
> 	minsize=0
> 	maxsize=16384
> 
> 	or if nothing is specified, then minsize=0, maxsize=0 -- any
> 	message.

	Single scalars ?  I was thinking more of bins:

	sizebins="4 64 1000 0"  # Bin upper bound values in kilobytes
				# "0" is magic meaning "no limit"

	That way messages with sizes up to this much (what is message
	size anyway ?  headers + body ? Or headers + body + envelope ?)
	are stored into same bin.  When no sizebins are defined, all
	messages are stored into the same bin.

> >	Things are simplified, if the selection criteria is same for
> >	all recipients on same channel+host pairs within one message.
> >	I mean that it should place all recipients at same host into
> >	same thread.  If it doesn't, well, scheduler and transport-
> >	agent protocols need major overhaul job...
> 
> 	Well, size sorting criteria is the most perfect thing i can
> 	think of regarding this problem.
> 
> >	I don't have time to look at that code before week 6, after
> >	I have returned from RIPE meeting at Amsterdam.
> 
> 	Great, lets have zmailer international development meeting
> here :) You drink beer Matti? Remember Columbus?

	Shudder...  -- no, I have not tasted it, but prospects of
	drinking large amounts of alcohol are not my idea about a
	good evening.  At home (or with friends) I usually serve
	myself a half-a-shot (2 cl) of cognac, for example.
	Also I am supposedly on diet trying to drop two of my 15
	stones of weight (for imperially challenged, your UNIXes
	have 'units' command, ask 'stones' vs, 'kg' -- or vs. 
	'pounds' ...)

	Yes, definitely I am willing to taste it, but not overdo it :)

> 								alexis

/Matti Aarnio