I just had a flashback from every report I did in high school.
--Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: Dax Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Adam D. McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: claim: qmail uses more bandwidth
:On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
:
:> From: Edward S. Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> :On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
:> :> I've posted messages to linux-smp that have taken over 12 hours to get
:> :> posted (or at least to be returned to me..)
:> :>
:> :> The qmail mailing list, on the other hand, usually has a 1-2 second
:> :> turnaround.
:> :
:> :Surely you jest? Do you have -any- idea how many deliveries, plus cvs
:> :sessions, vger.rutgers.edu deals with daily? Sorry, but the system
:> :handling the QMail mailing list doesn't even come close to that level of
:> :throughput load.
:>
:> Exactly which comment of mine did you have a problem with?
:>
:> recently list.cr.yp.to has sustained 1.5 million deliveries per day over a
:> seven day period, without lagging.
:>
:> Even if vger.rutgers.edu is doing ten times that, (which I seriously
doubt),
:> it shouldn't take a matter of hours to get a message posted. This type of
:> thing really affects the flow of conversation.
:
:The stats said the linux-kernel list has about 1.5 million deliveries per
:day. With anon-cvs turned off the lag of posting is down from 30 hours to
:1-2 hours, still totally unacceptable.
:
:It seriously degrades communication. For example a new pre patch comes
:out with some typo in it and 40 people post about the problem because they
:haven't received any messages to list mentioning that problem (yet).
:
:If the list has a < 20 second turn around like the qmail list, those
:things wouldn't happen.
:
:But like Russell said, David Miller has been refusing to even *look* at
:qmail for 3 years.
:
:Dax Kelson
:
:
:
:
:
