Timeout of SMTP servers
in [Postfix]
|
Prev: SOLVED: rbl check being skipped - Postfix logs no error on NXDOMAIN,does on SERVFAIL
Next: SOLVED: rbl check being skipped - Postfix logs no error on NXDOMAIN, does on SERVFAIL
From: Martijn de Munnik on 22 Jan 2010 08:46 Hi List, RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it is awaiting the next command from the sender." When I try to connect to an one.com mx (mx-cluster1.one.com or mx-cluster2.one.com) I notice they will close the connection after about 3 seconds. Why do they do this? Is anybody else using such short timeouts? Thanks, Martijn -- YoungGuns Kasteleinenkampweg 7b 5222 AX 's-Hertogenbosch T. 073 623 56 40 F. 073 623 56 39 www.youngguns.nl KvK 18076568
From: Sahil Tandon on 23 Jan 2010 10:24 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote: > RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads > > "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it > is awaiting the next command from the sender." The key word is SHOULD, as opposed to MUST. > When I try to connect to an one.com mx (mx-cluster1.one.com or > mx-cluster2.one.com) I notice they will close the connection after about 3 > seconds. Why do they do this? Is anybody else using such short timeouts? That timeout does seem foolishly short, but they might have legitimate reasons that are best explained by ... them! Try pinging their postmaster. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)tandon.net>
From: Martijn de Munnik on 23 Jan 2010 11:17 On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote: > >> RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads >> >> "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it >> is awaiting the next command from the sender." > > The key word is SHOULD, as opposed to MUST. "SHOULD" equals "MUST unless you have a really good reason". I'm trying to figure out if somebody on the list knows a really good reason. > >> When I try to connect to an one.com mx (mx-cluster1.one.com or >> mx-cluster2.one.com) I notice they will close the connection after about 3 >> seconds. Why do they do this? Is anybody else using such short timeouts? > > That timeout does seem foolishly short, but they might have legitimate > reasons that are best explained by ... them! Try pinging their > postmaster. > > -- > Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)tandon.net> >
From: Wietse Venema on 23 Jan 2010 11:51 Martijn de Munnik: > > On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote: > > > >> RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads > >> > >> "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it > >> is awaiting the next command from the sender." > > > > The key word is SHOULD, as opposed to MUST. > > "SHOULD" equals "MUST unless you have a really good reason". I'm > trying to figure out if somebody on the list knows a really good > reason. Ask THEIR postmaster. Wietse
From: Sahil Tandon on 23 Jan 2010 12:11
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote: > On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Martijn de Munnik wrote: > > > >> RFC2821 section 4.5.3.2 Timeouts reads > >> > >> "An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while > >> it is awaiting the next command from the sender." > > > > The key word is SHOULD, as opposed to MUST. > > "SHOULD" equals "MUST unless you have a really good reason". I'm > trying to figure out if somebody on the list knows a really good > reason. *yawn*. Perhaps you will benefit from repetition: ask their postmaster, as I advised in my initial response and others have since echoed. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil(a)tandon.net> |