> I could have my Imail/Web server use it for SMTP delivery, too. The > FreeBSD/qmail box is fast and since this is all it does, it's > never under > much stress.
Perfect. > But how is that less resource intensive than having IMail > deliver the SMTP > traffic directly? IMail would still have to use SMTP to send the traffic > over to the qmail box, right? It seems to me the same number of > SMTP dialogs > and transactions would occur... only just to my FreeBSD/qmail > box instead of > the ultimate destination servers. There's a *big* difference between IMail handing off all SMTP deliveries to your qmail box, and IMail doing the actual SMTP deliveries itself. To do the actual deliveries, a mailserver must 1) perform DNS lookups on each host address to find the recipient's MX record and IP of the mailserver, 2) initiate a conversation with the receiving mailserver, 3) manage that conversation, which can sometimes take dozens of seconds (for large messages or slow servers), 4) manage communication failures with the appropriate retry policy, and finally 5) send postmaster notification messages if necessary. My conservative guess is that it's 50X more resource-intensive to have IMail do the deliveries, vs. just doing the handoff to another mailserver. Ron Hornbaker President/CTO . . . . . . . . . . . . http://humankindsystems.com . . . . . . . . . . . . w e c o d e. w e c a r e. . http://AnswerTrack.com - eCRM email tracking solution . http://KillerWebMail.com - the name says it all . http://hksi.net/products - EZSignUp, You'veGotIMail!, etc... . http://hksi.net/testimonials - 2,333 admins can't be wrong Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
