* John A. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> IIRC 50 was chosen as the default_destination_recipient_limit default
> because too many mailers balk or choke on more. Do you remember
> differently? Or, do you actually see many SMTP listeners willing to
> swallow 10,000 recipients?
Doesn't really matte
Hi Alex,
> I have my Exchange setup to allow 500 recipients per message. Mailman
> is also configured to send 500 recipients per message. As a result
> all 55 aol.com, 65 yahoo.com, or 51 hotmail.com recipients on my
> largest list are send to Exchange on the same message. Exchange can
> send a
which one kicks ass,
I mean works the best!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of alex wetmore
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:10 PM
To: Jonathan Knight
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] MS Exchange as a rela
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Hildebrandt
>>>>> "Re: [Mailman-Users] MS Exchange as a relay computer?"
>>>>> Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:32:43 +0100
Ralf> * alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
>One benefit to using Exchange 2000 as your outbound MTA is that it
>works very well with batching.
>
>I have my Exchange setup to allow 500 recipients per message. Mailman
>is also configured to send 500 recipients per message. As a result
>all 55 aol.com, 65 yahoo.com, or 51 hotmail.com recipi
> "RH" == Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RH> Excellent. I got no password :(
Go to
http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py
and look at the bottom of the page. :)
-Barry
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECT
* Barry A. Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> RH> This should definitely go!
>
> That's in the FAQwiz, right? Feel free to update that (it's on the
> honor system).
I found the password by now...
I haven't changed everything, though.-..
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (Im Auftrag des Referat V a) [EMAIL
* Barry A. Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > "RH" == Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RH> * alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> The Mailman FAQ still recommends setting MAX_SMTP_RCPTS to 10
> >> for performance reasons, but doesn't explain why.
>
> RH> This
> "RH" == Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RH> * alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The Mailman FAQ still recommends setting MAX_SMTP_RCPTS to 10
>> for performance reasons, but doesn't explain why.
RH> This should definitely go!
That's in the FAQwiz, right? F
* alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry for the misinformation. I was going by some information that I
> learned on this list about two years ago stating that setting
> MAX_SMTP_RCPTS to between 5 and 10 will increase parallelism with the
> MTA.
>
> Will exim and postfix both open multiple c
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Jonathan Knight wrote:
> > > Exchange can
> > > send a single message to handle all of those recipients instead of
> > > sending 5 or 10 as would occur when using the recommended batching of
> > > 10 recipients per message
> > Exchange can
> > send a single message to handle all of those recipients instead of
> > sending 5 or 10 as would occur when using the recommended batching of
> > 10 recipients per message for postfix and other popular Unix-based
> > MTAs.
* alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have my Exchange setup to allow 500 recipients per message. Mailman
> is also configured to send 500 recipients per message. As a result
> all 55 aol.com, 65 yahoo.com, or 51 hotmail.com recipients on my
> largest list are send to Exchange on the same mess
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
> I second the recommendation NOT to use Exchange as your mail transport agent.
> If you've got a DNS server (even your MS box, shiver me timbers) that's only
> a couple milliseconds away, you're not going to see any noticeable performance
> hit, especially
* Bob Puff@NLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I second the recommendation NOT to use Exchange as your mail transport agent.
> If you've got a DNS server (even your MS box, shiver me timbers) that's only
> a couple milliseconds away, you're not going to see any noticeable performance
> hit, especially if
* Angel Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The reason I was going to do this, is because I don't really want to
> have two DNS servers on the same subnet, and email being sent by a
> machine with local DNS, is going to send faster that a machine that has
> to wait for DNS queries to be answered.
a) Y
I second the recommendation NOT to use Exchange as your mail transport agent.
If you've got a DNS server (even your MS box, shiver me timbers) that's only
a couple milliseconds away, you're not going to see any noticeable performance
hit, especially if it's on your local lan. I've found that by f
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Ralf Hildebrandt
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 7:30 PM
To: Angel Gabriel
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] MS Exchange as a relay computer?
* Angel Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Angel Gabriel wrote:
> Does anyone on this list have MS Exchange as a relay computer? I was
> thinking that local DNS speeds up email delivery, and MS Exchange, requires
> local DNS to function, so if I relayed all my mailman email via my MS
> Exchange box, it should deliver th
* Angel Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does anyone on this list have MS Exchange as a relay computer? I was
> thinking that local DNS speeds up email delivery, and MS Exchange, requires
> local DNS to function, so if I relayed all my mailman email via my MS
> Exchange box, it should deliver the lot
20 matches
Mail list logo
