Sign up ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Here in Australia, we are connected to the Internet by rusty tin cans that occasionally get packet loss due to stray koalas playing with the line.

At least; that's what it feels like most of the time.

I work for a medium sized business (100+ employees), in which we need to frequently do mailouts for various sections of the business.

each business section has their own 'newsletters' and updates etc.

They've got pretty large mailing lists, as well as custom lists all sent via SMTP direct from databases to an exchange server; and typically they send out attachments (I'm working on a nice easy way for that to be hosted). but even when there are no attachments, it can tie up our mail server for at least an hour.

This delays email, which causes strain on other unrelated systems or time-critical tasks. which causes helpdesk jobs to increase, which overall increases an already high stress level of a small IT team (2 of us).

The current way to manage it is by delaying the mailouts until near the end of business hours. I don't believe this is a good long term solution and this isn't exactly a policy that can be heartily enforced; so every now and again theres a straggler who either doesn't know, or for whatever reason their message is 'very important', but typically not that time-critical.

now to the question:

I'm pretty much a linux newbie, but i've got an idea for a solution.

Given the problem, I would like to know if there is a way that I could set up a 'mail queuing' server. I'm thinking of a linux VM that had some type of 'quality of service' control, so I could limit the amout of bandwidth that is used constantly by our mail server, so it wont be flooded, and continue to have the other services working, decreasing our stress levels ;).


  • 4000 emails go to 'mail staging' linux vm server from database
  • mail staging server forwards on those emails, say 15 emails every minute to our exchange server, or set a "max outgoing bandwidth kb" for the server.

Ultimately I understand "we're gonna need a bigger pipe", but basically, the budget can't stand it at the moment.

ServerFault, is this possible?

Edit: Zoredache has asked 'why don't we send the email directly from the distribution server'

unfortunately, it's not that simple. the 'distribution server' is really a filemaker pro database hosted on a filemaker server, which there is a client plugin that allows it to send email, essentially acting like cut-down mail client.

Yes, I know it's not optimal.

2nd edit: can somebody please tag this 'filemaker'. it's a new tag, therefore I can't create it :P

share|improve this question
Why would you send the mail from the Linux box to the Exchange box? Why not just deliver the message directly from the distribution list server? – Zoredache Aug 20 '09 at 3:16
Ahaha, I feel your pain with our internet connections. Can't wait for the fabled NBN to come online (if it ever eventuates) – Mark Henderson Aug 20 '09 at 3:32
(for the record, we got the cheapest Naked DSL link we could get, and because we're very close to the North Sydney exchange we were able to get a 2mb uplink speed. We send our mailouts through this to stop it hogging our normal link). – Mark Henderson Aug 20 '09 at 3:37

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

There is one quick and simple way to do this. I'll show you the Postfix way:

  1. Match the bulk mails (by header / regular expression whatever...) and let them get put on HOLD all the time. No matter when they are sent.


    header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/header_checks


    /^Custom-Mail-Header: true/ HOLD Delayed until out of hours
  2. Then out of hours (you can define this in a crontab any way you like) you can use

    15 20-23 * * * /usr/sbin/postsuper -H ALL

That'll release mail on hold at 20:15, 21:15, 22:15 and 23:15 every day.

Correct paths and crontab times where appropiate.

share|improve this answer
I was going to suggest using cron to have iptables block outbound smtp during business hours, but I like your solution better. – Haakon Aug 20 '09 at 22:35
this looks like a better solution, and more in line with what I was thinking in the original question, also so there needn't be any messing with routers. – posty Aug 21 '09 at 1:56

Depending on the quality of your router, you may be able to apply QoS on the SMTP port for certain IPs.

It's been a very long time since I played with Qos, but from memory you can, at router level, assign the IP address of your mail server a low QoS on Port 25.

Of course, this is going to lower the QoS for EVERYBODY, but if you were to have a 2nd mail server that you use just for your massive mailouts, then you could use it for sending the mail and lower the QoS on its IP address, and then everyone using the normal mail server will still be able to transmit.

This goes along the lines of what Zoredache commented though - this will just send the mail directly from the 2nd box. There's not much point in re-sending it when the box can just send it on its own...

share|improve this answer
That might be able to do it, but; i've never really messed with QoS; and the more I think about trying to set this up, the more of a headache I get. I think I'll just wait until the budget can hack getting a seperate dsl connection. ta. but thanks for the response :) – posty Aug 20 '09 at 4:48

You didn't specify who the recipients of the messages are.

If they're external to the business and the messages are not customised per recipient, a mailing list provider could be a cheap alternative.

The upside here is you're not taking the bandwidth or processing hit draining the messages through your Exchange infrastructure; you send out one copy and the mailing list software off site then explodes it to the 4000 recipients.

Security wise, mailing list software can usually be configured with authorised addresses or can implement a method of moderation, allowing external control or review of messages before they are released for delivery.

share|improve this answer
they're kind of external, easiest thing to say is the business is unique :), typically not customised. I've thought of an external provider; and we kind of have one, but the interface is not brilliant, and there isn't the ability to 'automate' the process as it is now, involving finding, exporting and uploading csv's. basically, too much room room for human error unfortunately. as the lists are reasonably dynamic, as sometimes we send to 'subsets', it's not really 'one list'. so it doesn't really suit a 'mailing list' infrastructure. but, the moderation sounds interesting, got any links? – posty Aug 21 '09 at 1:53
I use it with GNU Mailman - it's certainly not unique to this product, so I'd expect something similar to be available with common mailing list packages. – Greg Work Aug 22 '09 at 12:57

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.