On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 11:49:40AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 11:41:45AM +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> > The trouble is that practically all mailers will write the queue file to
> > disk before they do *anything* else, for safety reasons. If I
> > understood the initial message correctly, this is his problem.
>
> Ah, but if the mails are all the same, then there is only one queue file
> per group of recipients...
As per the original mail, I don't think that they are. They are all
individual messages.
> > I think that qmail, exim and postfix all fall into this category. I
> > have a feeling that it can be turned off in sendmail, but you'd need to
> > check.
>
> Not sure about this. qmail is a *very* bad idea if you're doing huge mail
> shots. It decides to ignore the SHOULD in RFC1123 which says you should
> do
> | RCPT TO
> | RCPT TO
> :
> | DATA
>
> and instead opens up as many connections as it can to the remote mailserver
> wasting bandwidth and hammering both ends.
Hmmm, this is another one of those arguments where you can go back and
forth all day without really getting anywhere (see Reply-To).
This is also the standard anti-qmail rant that exim supporters use. :)
> Its delivery strategy after a backlog is also crap, because it's just FIFO.
It's been so long since I've used it that I can't really remember what
it's like.
> MBM (really really anti-qm**l)
IMHO, the only, really sensible reason to be anti-qmail is the fact that
it's not open source and the author is a fascist idiot.
Aside from that, it's a pretty nice piece of software.
-Dom (still trying to think about the original problem)
--
| Semantico: creators of major online resources |
| URL: http://www.semantico.com/ |
| Tel: +44 (1273) 722222 |
| Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
