"Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Petr Novotny wrote:
>>
>> This horse has been beaten to death. What do you mean by
>> "should"? And why "limited number"?
>
>To be friendly to your neighbours ...
Ah... And are your HTTP, FTP, etc. clients and servers also "friendly
to your neighbours"? Or do they do their job as quickly as they can?
And are you providing services to your neighbors or your users?
>> Of course, your MTA might have different priorities. Nobody
>> coerced you into using qmail, right?
>
>No, but if qmail is making the deliveries to another MTA, that MTA doesn't
>have much choice about whether its going to accept deliveries from Qmail or
>not,
Of course it does.
>so why not make Qmail a nice neighbour while we're at it?
Not mine, thank you.
>There's nothing wrong with using intelligent queuing to reorder messages and
>reduce session #'s.
"wrong"? No, of course not. Unless you're trying to do VERP's or
deliver messages as quickly as possible. And you don't mind the
additional complexity and the bugs--security and otherwise--that come
with it.
>If just getting the mail out FAST is all that matters,
>fine. But that's NOT all that matters.
It's not *all* that matters. It's also important to do it reliably,
securely, and RFC-legally. Thankfully, qmail accomplishes this.
-Dave
