I appreciate your pointing this out.
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John R. Levine)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Is qmail "best reserved for mailing list server purposes
>only"?
>Date: 30 Apr 2001 19:15:38 -0400
>
> >One last note on this thread. While rereading the FAQ, I came across this
> >which indicates qmail has brakes to keep from generating denial of
>service
> >attacks.
> >
> >http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/efficiency.html
> >
> >Does qmail back off from dead hosts?
> >Answer: Yes. qmail has three backoff features: ...
>
>Qmail backs off very well, but doesn't work all that well with
>sendmail under heavy load. The problem is that sendmail keeps
>accepting connections even when it doesn't have enough system
>resources to accept mail, and tends to thrash to death. (Qmail
>systems usually use tcpserver which enforces a maximum number of
>simultaneous connections rejecting any beyond that limit.) But since
>sendmail doesn't reject connections, qmail can't tell that the
>recipient system isn't responding.
>
>Sendmail users tend to assume that anything sendmail does must be
>right, and anything different must be wrong, so they often blame qmail
>for opening "too many" connections. In reality, the connections could
>just as easily come from any other mail system, of course.
>
>
>--
>John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner,
>http://iecc.com/johnl,
>Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
