KS-Soft. Network Management Solutions
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister    ProfileProfile    Log inLog in 

missing features for test MailRelay

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    KS-Soft Forum Index -> Wish list
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rasc



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:36 am    Post subject: missing features for test MailRelay Reply with quote

- specify (FQDN for) HELO/EHLO command to be used
- "Alert when incoming mail server does not receive mail within N sec" --> please allow FAR more than 60 s (180?)

Thank you!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KS-Soft



Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 12792
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
specify (FQDN for) HELO/EHLO command to be used

If you are using Advanced Host Monitor version 9.30, then there is update for you: www.ks-soft.net/download/hm930c.zip
You may replace hostmon.exe module, then add line like SMTPSystemName1=host.domain.com into [Misc] section of hostmon.ini file and start HostMonitor.

Quote:
Alert when incoming mail server does not receive mail within N sec" --> please allow FAR more than 60 s (180?)

We think its better to set "Alert when incoming mail server does not receive mail before next checking cycle" test option instead of long intervals.

Regards
Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rasc



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Alex, will try that tomorrow.

KS-Soft wrote:
Quote:
Alert when incoming mail server does not receive mail within N sec" --> please allow FAR more than 60 s (180?)

We think its better to set "Alert when incoming mail server does not receive mail before next checking cycle" test option instead of long intervals.

Regards
Alex


We do not think so. Using "next cycle" would require double as many tests (half the time between tests) to give same response time.
i.e. now we test every 6 hours. Now we know latest 6hours after the outage that the problem exists.
With your suggestion this doubles to 12 hours (test went OK, immediatly after is the outage. We check (send) in 6 hours and recheck (cannot receive) in another 6 hours).
That is why we think the "next cycle" is only useful for tests with a high(er) frequency.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KS-Soft



Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 12792
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the reason to perform test every 6 hours if you can perform it every 10-15 min?

Regards
Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rasc



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KS-Soft wrote:
What is the reason to perform test every 6 hours if you can perform it every 10-15 min?

Regards
Alex

10-15min is WAY over the top!
Besides that it floods (DOSes) the log files of all mail servers it is absolutely unnecessary to test the backup MX every 10 min (one could use the SMTP test that often but we do not even do that).
Our backup MX is the 3rd (hosted at www.zoneedit.com) and all we need to test is that they made no mistake configuring the paid service (as happened in the past).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KS-Soft



Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 12792
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still don't see the problem here. What is the problem to perform test every 3 hours instead of every 6 hours?
Mail server should be able to receive 1000 mails per second. 0.3(3) extra mail per hour should not lead to any problems.
Am I wrong?

Regards
Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rasc



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hmmm, it just looks weird. Besides one had to check every two (2) hours instead of every 6 to achieve the same statistical probability of 3 hours between an error and the alert.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rasc



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KS-Soft wrote:
I still don't see the problem here. What is the problem to perform test every 3 hours instead of every 6 hours?

I still do not see the advantage for you to limit the customer to an unpractical value (have you ever heard of MXes that operate 2 or even 3, 4 (primary, secondary, antiSPAM, AV) queues and polls these every 30 or 60 sec? A mail takes 2 min to go through that single server. Not to mention the real mail relays (what the test is made for) which are external systems and send the mail when they feel it appropriate.
60s is OK for a single server within our own farm. But not for an internet relay test.

KS-Soft wrote:
Am I wrong?

IMHO yes, absolutely. Especially as it takes more time to write these lines you wrote than to change the hard coded limit in the software.
As long as a customer does not ask ridiculous features and it only takes seconds to implement: Why would one NOT do it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KS-Soft



Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 12792
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I still do not see the advantage for you to limit the customer to an unpractical value (have you ever heard of MXes that operate 2 or even 3, 4 (primary, secondary, antiSPAM, AV) queues and polls these every 30 or 60 sec

Advantage - resource usage. HostMontor should be able to handle thousands test items and perform many tests simultaneously. When you have 20,000 (or more) test items it is very important to use as few system resources as possible.
That's why we do not want to hold TCP connection and entire Windows thread for a long time.

Quote:
Especially as it takes more time to write these lines you wrote than to change the hard coded limit in the software.

Yes, its very easy to change this option but we think its a bad idea.
So its better to spend some time trying to convince you then save our time but make software worse.

Regards
Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rasc



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KS-Soft wrote:
Yes, its very easy to change this option but we think its a bad idea.
So its better to spend some time trying to convince you then save our time but make software worse.

Well this part is true and thank you for that!
KS-Soft wrote:
Advantage - resource usage. HostMontor should be able to handle thousands test items and perform many tests simultaneously. When you have 20,000 (or more) test items it is very important to use as few system resources as possible.

Well, that is /very/ unfortunate for us as we bought Enterprise (Lifetime) but only have (exactly) 200 tests so far. So we paid the price for Enterprise and now also pay the penalty for Enterprise resource usage...*
KS-Soft wrote:
That's why we do not want to hold TCP connection and entire Windows thread for a long time.

One would not need to hold any TCP connection. One sended the mail and closed that connection (one had to anyway - how would you re-use a TCP/25 connection to connect to TCP/110 later??) and later make a new connection for pop3. That thread wouldn't matter in our environment.
KS-Soft wrote:

Yes, its very easy to change this option but we think its a bad idea.
So its better to spend some time trying to convince you then save our time but make software worse.

How about 180s (or even 300!) and a MsgBox popping up when t>60s warning the customer? Yeah, that's another 10s to code but it really would help smaller customers to get more use out of your software.



* this is NOT a refund request!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KS-Soft



Joined: 03 Apr 2002
Posts: 12792
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, we will add another undocumented option in next version

Regards
Alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rasc



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 95

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you very much!!

P.S. This also gives a new business opportunity to myself: Authoring a Book "Advanced Hostmonitor - the undocumented secrets"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    KS-Soft Forum Index -> Wish list All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

KS-Soft Forum Index