On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 11:00:06AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Nick Simicich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At 09:06 PM 3/6/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:
>
> >>* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list. A good thing,
> >> or a bad thing? It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
> >> isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix. It also tends to be less
> >> memory-efficient. My opinion is that it should be an option (since
> >> sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
> >> installations, which do their own queue optimization.
> >
> >Why is it ever bad?
>
> I've got my busiest lists sorted by average delivery time: users on
> more responsive systems get delivered to sooner than users on slower
> systems.
This makes sense. Barring the ability to do multiple simultaneous
deliveries (i.e. Exim, Postfix, and qmail), you want to put the slow
people very low in the list or they'll slow down everyone after them. I
did some tests a few years ago with a two-pass delivery system - the first
pass would try to deliver with a very low timeout - if the MTA couldn't
deliver in a few seconds, queue the message and go on. Later, the second
pass (using a longer timeout) would catch the rest of the messages.
It worked fairly well - the fast users stayed fast, and the slow
users only hurt themselves.
David
--
David Shaw | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson
