r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server

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.