On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 04:05:58AM -0500, Tim Pierce wrote: > So I calculated this percentage for each of the thousand lists, then > added them all together and took the average percentage. The result > was an average volume increase of 40%. Have you considered doing both? (Batch with an occasional VERP) Do normal delivery in batched mode. But every so often (such as once a week), set a flag on the list so that the next message to that particular list goes out with VERP enabled. Do this on different days for different lists. Bad addresses may hang around for 7 days before the next VERP run, but they will get caught eventually. -- Joe Smith MCI WorldCom, On-Net Design/Impl, Product Technical Support UNIX and Tech Sup: TYMNET Network, Xstream Packet Services (Public X.25) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2560 N 1st St, MS-5046/746, San Jose, CA 95131 Voice: 408-533-6220 = vnet 854-6220 Fax: 408-533-6702 = vnet 854-6702
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery John Levine
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Michelle Dick
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Nick Simicich
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery David W. Tamkin
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Tim Pierce
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery David W. Tamkin
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Michelle Dick
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Russ Allbery
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Joe Smith
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Roger Fajman
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery mark david mcCreary
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Roger Fajman
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery David W. Tamkin
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery James M Galvin
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Chuq Von Rospach
- Re: VERPs versus batched delivery Russ Allbery
