Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 8 November 1999 at 17:39:02 -0500 > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > > In a pathological case, qmail can use a lot more network bandwidth > > because of the duplication of messages going to the same system. In > > practice this is rarely a serious problem. Taking into account the > > *decreased* DNS traffic, it's even more rarely a problem. > > Pard'n me, but how does an additional DNS lookup for every recipient end > up reducing the overall amount of DNS traffic? qmail does fewer DNS lookups than sendmail, and that should be credited to its account when comparing bandwidth used. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Join the 20th century before it's too late! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Stefan Paletta
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Sam
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Sam
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Russell Nelson
- Big DNS-patch also for t-onlin... Frank Tegtmeyer
- Re: Big DNS-patch also for t-o... D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Big DNS-patch also for t-o... Frank Tegtmeyer
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Jim B
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic James J. Lippard
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Andy Bradford
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Jason Haar
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Fred Lindberg
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Bruce Guenter
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Frederik Lindberg