> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuq Von Rospach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > Computers are cheap. Bandwidth isn't necessarily cheap. I
> run with a
> > very high chunking factor because my MTA properly handles it
>
> But -- if this went away, what would it do to your bandwidth? Are you
> paying by packet? If not, the only PRACTICAL difference is
> that if the
> pipe is full, delivery slows down.
>
> What is the real cost is? That messages show up five minutes
> later than
> they would if we don't do this?
Well, I can give some figures...
My company is sending a newsletter on behalf of one of our clients. About
4000 subscribers.
First this was done by an Exchange mailserver (Yes, I hated it too, that's
why I came in ;).
It took the server about 8 hours to send out all mail over the 256 k
upstream. And them it would still take some days to get out the failed
messages. If the NT server didn't break.
We switched to Mailman + Postfix some weeks ago and did a newsletter.
The mailserver was on a slow 14k upstream @home line... We calculated 7
hours of delivery time.
Not an improvement to the first, but at least a stable system and over a
lower quality line.
After 3 hours I checked the mailqueue... I was supprised to find that over
90% of the mail had been delivered.
The leftover 10% was merely wrong addresses or slow mailserver (bigfoot).
Suddenly I realised that it was the "several addresses at once" feature of
Mailman + Postfix that did the trick. Especially for the big bunch of
hotmail addresses we have in the list.
--
Enriko Groen, Hosting manager
--------------------------------------------------------
netivity bv www.netivity.nl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
038 - 850 1000 van nagellstraat 4 8011 eb zwolle
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
