On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:00:42PM -0400, Joshua Nichols wrote:
> > > Not true. It simply means that the remote system would have to
> > > implement VERP when qmail-remote tells the smtpd that the envelope
> > > sender is list-@[]@host.example.com. Unfortunately, qmail-remote and
> > > VERP-compatible smtp servers do not cooperate in that manner.
>
> All this talk of delivery optimization and VERP actually raises a few
> question for me:
>
> 1. Is there a seperate instance of qmail-remote for each bcc: header?
There is a separate instance of qmail-remote for every recipient. If a
recipient is named twice, that counts as two recipients.
> 2. If so, how does one message with many recipients save memory or run
> faster? Wouldn't there be an identical number of messages in memory as
> sending many messages with one recipient? I'm assuming the answer is no,
> otherwise it wouldn't be recommended, right?
The message only enters the queue once, from which point on qmail only
has to flag a recipient when a message is sent. If you send lots of
separate identical messages each with one recipient, these all have to
go into the queue, chewing up diskspace and disk bandwidth.
qmail is very good at spewing out one message lots of times. That's
why it rocks for mailinglists :)
> 6. Does implementing VERB or VERH negate the benefits of 1 message, many
> recipients?
No. The patches exist explicitly to allow some extra flexibility while
keeping that benefit.
> Lyris and L-soft both claim that their mtas are better (faster) because they
> will do "domain batching". If they are not misleading the masses, has
> anyone thought of ways (or developed patches) to implement this behavior in
> qmail? Russ?
They are misleading the masses.
> Perhaps this is all misguided conversation, but it seems to me that most of
> the threads on the list fall into 1 of 2 categories:
>
> 1. Qmail doesn't work (read as "I broke it" * ).
> 2. How can I get _______ to work better? (Expect "What problem are you
> trying to solve?")
Might be quite a correct observation :)
> What are people's thoughts? Feel free to respond off-list if you feel this
> is off-topic. I am thinking of assembling a document containing (founded
> upon) the best advice from the gurus, because these sorts of issues so often
> make it to the list (and past the archives).
This is ofcourse good, but check the archives. Several FAQ-like pages
already exists. www.qmail.org links to most of m.
Greetz, Peter
--
Against Free Sex! http://www.dataloss.nl/Megahard_en.html
