Joshua Nichols writes:
> > > 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
regardless of how the recipient got to qmail-queue (and yes, bcc: is
one of the ways).
> 2. If so, how does one message with many recipients save memory or run
> faster?
It saves a HUGE amount of disk space and disk bandwidth. Otherwise,
each recipient gets its own copy of the message body.
> 4. Does the existing qmail-verh patch work on the body of the message? The
> archives suggest that this would be VERB, not VERP or VERH.
No, it doesn't modify the body. What if a message contained '#'?
> 5. If qmail-verh won't do replacements on the body, did anyone ever write a
> qmail-verb patch?
I did, but it's not freely copyable, and I charge mucho dinero to
install it.
> 6. Does implementing VERB or VERH negate the benefits of 1 message, many
> recipients?
No, because the per-recipient substitution is done inside qmail-remote.
> 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?
Dan has said that qmail has been measured to be faster and use less
bandwidth than sendmail's implementation of the same idea. I don't
know if Lyris and L-soft have better implementations than sendmail.
Changing qmail to do this kind of batching would be a significant
change. I hope that qmail 2 will address this problem. Whether it's
a real problem or not, it's certainly a marketing problem. And it
doesn't matter if you've got the world's most secure software if
people have reasons to not use it.
> 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?")
:-)
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | John Hartford, RIP
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
