"P.Y. Adi Prasaja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If this information could be gathered from: > > http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eoperation.html > >then one can make a conclusion that the authors no nothing about >postfix. /etc/postfix/master.cf has nothing todo with concurrency >control in postfix, at least if he think that it has the same fashion >as qmail. He apparently confused incoming concurrency with outgoing concurrency. Luckily, Postfix defaults to 50, so the results are still valid. -Dave
- RE: Anti Virus Slider
- Re: Anti Virus Robin S. Socha
- Re: Anti Virus Jason Haar
- Re: Anti Virus Alexander Pennace
- Re: Anti Virus Eric Cox
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance Irwan Hadi
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: why qmail is more secure, was: Mailing list perform... Ronny Haryanto
- Re: why qmail is more secure, was: Mailing list pe... Dave Sill
- Re: why qmail is more secure, was: Mailing lis... Ronny Haryanto
- Re: why qmail is more secure, was: Mailing... Michael T. Babcock