From: Anthony Howe
Date: 2005-01-11 05:42:16 -0500
Subject: Re: performance of milter-ahead?
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
Anke Breeuwsma wrote:
>>If you're just talking about the regular creation and deletion of
>>accounts as customers come and go, then I wouldn't bother using a low
>>TTL. Just let them expire normally so your system can benefit from
>>longer TTL for the regular users.
> I know, deletion is not my problem. My problem is that customers know their email
> addresses before the system makes those addresses active. So, it's possible that
> they're trying to use their address before it's active and then they become
> x days.
> Is it possible, like milter-gris, to have a different ttl for temporary fail entries
> accepted entries stored in the cache?
It would be possible to add something like that, but that assumes that
you return a temporary failure. If an address doesn't exist, Sendmail
returns a permanent failure.
Hmmm. An off the top of my head idea for milter-ahead (and maybe other
cache situations with my other milters). Maybe an exponentially
incrementing TTL might be the trick. The milter could start with a short
TTL, like 60s. After the short TTL elapses, the next message would
trigger a retest: failure would double the short TTL, success would
change its status, this would keep going on until max. TTL is reached.
Might this be if interest to yourself and other users?
Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78
7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus
"Once...we were here." - Last of The Mohicans
Copyright 2009, 2012 by SnertSoft. All rights reserved.