World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5740x2] | That was last month too. |
I was also thinking of how scaleable it could be made ... | |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5742] | Were you satisfied by that or would have you prefered that gmail gives you a failure report 5 minutes max after posting your email? |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5743] | I'd prefer instant failure report ... |
Maxim 18-Sep-2009 [5744] | yeah cause we'll try another communication channel right away :-) |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5745x2] | but that's not detemined by gmail ... the recipient server might be the cause. |
If you use SQS then you could have a farm of Cheyenne servers sending the mail :) | |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5747] | Me too, that's why I'm reluctant to implement it in the old fashion way (retrying every 8 or 12 hours seems way too long now). I would support trying without delays alternative MX servers and if all fail, try 1 or 2 minutes after that. That would be by default, but could be extended by user if required. |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5748] | of course it could be your own isp that is the issue ... sometimes we have lost interrnational traffic, but local traffic is okay. |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5749] | Emails sending and MX querying are all fully async. Emails are streamed from disk, no memory overhead whatever the email size. You could send hundred (maybe even thousands on fastest machines) of email per second using Cheyenne if needed. |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5750x3] | so failing every email ... would not be good. |
Guess we need to field test .. and see how it works | |
Anyone got a list of 1,000,000 valid email addresses for sale?? | |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5753x2] | Yes, it needs heavy testing, but works quite well so far. |
:-) | |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5755x5] | If you're not using your ISP's smtp server, won't the recipient notice your domain and the email from address don't match and flag your email as spam?? |
Unless your smtp server is a trusted or whitelisted server | |
Well, I used to use that criteria when I had my own mail server ... I grey listed all such messages. | |
So, the question is also, does the mta handle greylisting ? | |
greylisting is when you temp fail an incoming message so that they are forced to wait eg. 5 mins or 30 mins before you accept their email. | |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5760] | Yes, some SMTP servers apply such restrictive rules, but not the big ones (AFAICT). But the more important is to have a reverse dns that matches your servers domain. |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5761x2] | spammers don't retry .. or retry immediately |
they don't delay for 5 mins and retry .. as it is too expensive | |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5763] | Cheyenne's MTA waits for 5mn before raising a timeout as per RFC. |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5764] | It's not a timeout, it's a temp failure. |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5765] | Never encountered that so far while testing with the big ones (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, French ISPs) |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5766] | http://www.compkarori.com/vanilla/display/Smtpd.r This is my teergrubbing greylisting mail server for Uniserve |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5767x2] | I tried sendind from home computers connected through either cable or ADSL connections. Only Yahoo!Mail rejected emails sent from ADSL network. |
I was quite surprised to see that Gmail and others accepted emails sent directly from a MTA on home computer...(I thought that I would need to make all testing from remote servers). | |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5769x3] | I also would now drop that restriction ... |
and analyse the email instead ... | |
but in 2005 I rejected all broadband based mtas | |
Dockimbel 18-Sep-2009 [5772] | Yeah, I studied your smtpd.r implementation. I thought I would need to support greylisting, but it seems not to be required to deliver emails to the big ones. |
Graham 18-Sep-2009 [5773] | Good to know ... |
Will 18-Sep-2009 [5774] | Thanks Dock for this new release 8) |
Maxim 18-Sep-2009 [5775] | You really are creating one of the flagship applications with cheyenne. Something that should be broadcast a bit more outside of the REBOL fanbase IMHO. |
Will 18-Sep-2009 [5776] | Many servers do use greylisting, many spammer bots do retry after a delay |
Maxim 18-Sep-2009 [5777x2] | build better armor, they build better weapons ;-) |
might as well wear none and dodge things instead ;-D | |
Graham 19-Sep-2009 [5779x4] | This was how the Mongul army defeated all the armies of Europe. |
Update cheyenne via Svn, ran it .. and it locks up consistently. | |
Windows 7 RC1 | |
Port 7900 | |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2009 [5783x2] | Max: I want the web control panel and the one-click webapp deployement feature for Cheyenne to make it more attractive to non-rebol users. Still a lot of work to make it close to what I have in mind. |
Graham: did you run it from sources or did you encap it? | |
Graham 19-Sep-2009 [5785x2] | source |
I should create a fresh checkout | |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2009 [5787] | try from console : do/args %cheyenne.r "-vvvvv" |
Graham 19-Sep-2009 [5788] | fresh checkout also locks up |
Dockimbel 19-Sep-2009 [5789] | Try using the verbose mode to see when that happens. |
older newer | first last |