doesn't sound like a bad idea... maybe for simplicity, just a global timeout
exceeded threshold which would log the offending blacklists name... might be
simpler...
If you are volunteering to path, I'm sure there would be interest from
some - I've seen this problem crop up before - particularly by people who
use more than a couple blacklists...
m/
-----Original Message-----
From: Holmström Lars [mailto:lars...@essnet.se]
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:44 PM
To: Mitch (WebCob); Holmström Lars; cour...@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [courier-users] delay in HELO response
May be a treshold value for each BLACKLIST entry would make sense. If
reached, a message is printed in maillog ?
/Lars
-----Original Message-----
From: Mitch (WebCob) [mailto:mit...@webcob.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:27 AM
To: Holmström Lars; cour...@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [courier-users] delay in HELO response
I've heard of that on the list before... if a blacklist goes down or stops
responding, it can add a significant amount of time to startup.
-----Original Message-----
From: cour...@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:cour...@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of
Holmström Lars
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:41 PM
To: Holmström Lars; Mitch (WebCob); Holmström Lars;
cour...@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [courier-users] delay in HELO response
But still I have not found where the time spent between the socket is
established and courier respond with "220 <server> Ready".
Can you give me some advice or hint ?
/Lars
11 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRE: [courier-users] delay in HELO res...
