From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332FF1FF30 for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 08:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966707AbdEWIbH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2017 04:31:07 -0400 Received: from wes1-so1-b.wedos.net ([46.28.106.43]:50839 "EHLO wes1-so1.wedos.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965219AbdEWIbD (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 May 2017 04:31:03 -0400 Received: from jvn (105.215.broadband18.iol.cz [109.81.215.105]) by wes1-so1.wedos.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wX7yp3wHZz5r0; Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:50 +0200 From: Jan Viktorin To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , xiaoqiang zhao , Git Mailing List , mst@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, mina86@mina86.com, Ramkumar Ramachandra Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] send-email: --batch-size to work around some SMTP server limit Message-ID: <20170523103050.1f7ab7e0@jvn> In-Reply-To: References: <20170521125950.5524-1-zxq_yx_007@163.com> Organization: RehiveTech X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 May 2017 16:46:27 +0900 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > > > Looking at this the Nth time now though I wonder about this approach > > in general. In all your E-Mails I don't think you ever said /what/ > > sort of error you had from the SMTP server, you just said you had a > > failure or an error, I assume you hit one of the die's in the > > send_message() function. Can you paste the actual error you get > > without this patch? Hello, I have issues with a company SMTP server that returns: Net::SMTP::SSL=GLOB(0x20d6510)<<< 451 4.3.0 Please try again later, rate limited. 4.3.0 Please try again later, rate limited. Unfortunately, I didn't find out the exact properties of the limit yet. It seems that sending more then 10 patches at once fails. Thus, I have to send longer patch sets in 2 rounds: 1. normal git send-email 2. git send-email --no-thread --in-reply-to="" \ ... It is not exactly the same as sending all the patches at once. The xiaoqiang's solution sounds promising to me. However, probably a more general solution would be to "just" enable sending a whole patch set in 2 rounds manually. But I didn't find any way how to do it right. Regards Jan > > > > I wonder if something like this would Just Work for this case without > > any configuration or command-line options, with the added benefit of > > just working for anyone with transitory SMTP issues as well (patch > > posted with -w, full version at > > https://github.com/avar/git/commit/acb60c4bde50bdcb62b71ed46f49617e2caef84e.patch): > > Yeah, if the issues users of 163.com are having can be resolved with > a more general approach like this, that would be very much preferred. > > > Now that's very much a WIP and I don't have a server like that to test against. > > > > Having worked with SMTP a lot in a past life/job, I'd say it's *very* > > likely that you're just getting a /^4/ error code from 163.com, > > probably 421, which would make this logic even simpler. I.e. we could > > just adjust this to back-off for /^4/ instead of trying to handle > > arbitrary errors. > > > > Anyway, I'm not interested in pursuing that WIP patch, and I don't > > think perfect should be the enemy of the good here. Your patch works > > for you, doesn't really damage anything else, so if you're not > > interested in hacking up something like the above I think we should > > just take it. > > > > > > But I do think it would be very good to get a reply to you / details > > in the commit message about what error you get exactly in this > > scenario, see if you get better details with --smtp-debug, and if so > > paste that (sans any secret info like user/password you don't want to > > share). > > Let's wait for a few days to see if xiaoqiang wants to take your > outline of more general approach and polish it. I do prefer the "no > config" solution as xiaoqiang won't be the only 163.com user, but > Individual Contributors cannot be forced, so ... > > Thanks.