SysAdmin has an article online by some of the top technical people
at Lyris (remember Lyris?):
Title: Which OS is Fastest for High-Performance Network Applications?
http://www.sysadminmag.com/newsletters/feature/
They use their MTA as a comparison tool, and crank it up to
the equvalent of a
Simon K. Grabowski writes:
> Is there any speed/performance gain if I inject messages
> directly via /mail/qmail/bin/qmail-inject instead of using
> sendmail replacement (/mail/qmail/bin/sendmail)?
> I know that sendmail command ultimately uses qmail-inject
> to inject th
Hi,
Is there any speed/performance gain if I inject messages
directly via /mail/qmail/bin/qmail-inject instead of using
sendmail replacement (/mail/qmail/bin/sendmail)?
I know that sendmail command ultimately uses qmail-inject
to inject the messages so I figured I'd cut the 'middle
Hi,
Is there any speed/performance gain if I inject messages
directly via /mail/qmail/bin/qmail-inject instead of using
sendmail replacement (/mail/qmail/bin/sendmail)?
I know that sendmail command ultimately uses qmail-inject
to inject the messages so I figured I'd cut the 'middle
Hi,
I setup freebsd4.2 with qmail in my intranet, I used
192.168...IP address; and I have
a DNS server with 202.96...IP address to provide name service
to dialup users(outside), the FB and DNS are connected with a router. I hope
dialup users could send and receive
mail. When the
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 10:43:55AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> hello friends
>
>
>i have installed qmail (SMTP/POP) and courier (IMAP) on 8 nodes running
> IBM AIX 4.3.3 , and is running fine on all the AIX 4.3.3 nodes, but
> before we use it as in practical environment i need
hello friends
i have installed qmail (SMTP/POP) and courier (IMAP) on 8 nodes running
IBM AIX 4.3.3 , and is running fine on all the AIX 4.3.3 nodes, but
before we use it as in practical environment i need to load test just to
check how much load it can sustain ,
if anyone knows a
On Thursday 07 December 2000 18:53, Andrzej Marszalek wrote:
> Eden Akhavi wrote:
> > Can anyone recommend a performance tester for POP3/IMAP4/SMTP
> > connections. I need to measure the max number of connections before
> > the server starts to degrade performance.
&g
Thanks for this - it looks ideal!
> -Original Message-
> From: root [mailto:root]On Behalf Of Andrzej Marszalek
> Sent: 07 December 2000 18:53
> To: Eden Akhavi
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Performance Testing
>
>
> Eden Akhavi wrote:
>
Eden Akhavi wrote:
>
> Can anyone recommend a performance tester for POP3/IMAP4/SMTP
> connections. I need to measure the max number of connections before
> the server starts to degrade performance.
POP3+SMTP:
Postal, homepage http://www.coker.com.au/postal/
Regards,
Andrzej
Can anyone recommend a performance tester for POP3/IMAP4/SMTP
connections. I need to measure the max number of connections before
the server starts to degrade performance.
Thanks
Eden
I have set up qmail using std instructions from
life with qmail. In order to run svscan, it has to set up log directory and run
multilog, some log program. However I notice that the hard disk and system is
heavily loaded when multilog is turned on. Using my P133, the load is usually
about 7
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 07:17:23AM -0800, Matt Brown wrote:
[snip]
> > In Apache, pre-forking is useful because it is one big fat whale.
> >
> > If you take a look at WN, for example (http://www.wnserver.org/), that
> > doesn't pre-fork, you'll see that it shows
; a lot of time in the kernel. That's why I said it's a good idea
> to have a scheduler that gives precedence to the todo queue. Why
> do you disagree?
I totally agree with the performance gain of the big todo patch on such
systems.
However, if you e.g. have a busy "incoming&
7;t avoid this happen locally.
Sorry? Yes you can. If it's important to you to do so, simply move
into place a qmail-queue which injects the messages into the other queue.
If you're still injecting into the main queue at this time, you'll need
to call qmail-queue directly. It all com
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:21:58AM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> Giving precidence to processing the todo queue seems like a good idea,
> especially if you don't have the big-todo patch applied.
I think there shouldn't be one queue in the scheduler. There's IMHO no
need to have the scheduler
t; > hoping to resolve with that, and did it actually achieve the desired
> > results?
>
> In Apache, pre-forking is useful because it is one big fat whale.
>
> If you take a look at WN, for example (http://www.wnserver.org/), that
> doesn't pre-fork, you'll see t
ne just for pumping
mail out while another is handling bounces.
>I think a big gain in performance would be to split up the scheduler
>in qmail-send into at least one for remote, one for locals and one
>for sorting in new messages into the remote or local queue.
Maybe some profiling on qma
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:38:24AM +, Greg Cope wrote:
>Hence to improve performance inject should be split up i.e inject 2000,
>wait, inject another 2000. In the wait times concurrency remote would
>be reached.
I always felt that it wasn't that useful to have the concurrency
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 07:39:42PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
>If within one loop of the scheduler you always have one incoming
>message with one remote delivery it's a pari situation, but if
>you always have one incoming message with more than one remote delivery
>it would be IMHO better to prio
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:24:07AM +, Greg Cope wrote:
>Also sending one message will reduce the I/O required compared to n
>messages.
If you can get away with having a single message with tons of BCCs...
>What about using tcpserver to limit the inbound connections - or even
>move this to an
he second and third
> shorter peaks are due to deferred messages tried again after backoff.
> The image (40 KB) is at
>
> http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/software/qmail/deliver-stats2.gif
>
> I know it would be better to also have some figures about messages
> in queu
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 12:53:27PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> >Out of interest does the Netfilter have a large / battery backed cache
> >to decrease the I/O / disk bottle neck ?
>
> Yes. They have a chunk of NVRAM which ACKs the write request as soon as it's
> comm
> results?
In Apache, pre-forking is useful because it is one big fat whale.
If you take a look at WN, for example (http://www.wnserver.org/), that
doesn't pre-fork, you'll see that it shows similar or better
performance.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bl
some figures about messages
in queue, unprocessed messages in queue, successful/deferred deliveries
included, but those are hard to extract from the logfile :/
I think a big gain in performance would be to split up the scheduler
in qmail-send into at least one for remote, one for locals and
ve
any profile information that suggests that the fork latency is even worth
considering as far as making a performance impact? During heavy activity,
I'm not sure that the added complexity of the pre-fork code would cause
anything but a negative impact on the fork latency. Checking to see if y
he ones I deal with are
>all individual (both in content and message headers).
Yes. We're doing only one large message at a time (250-750k recipients,
typically), and we shut down qmail-smptd during the run. With more jobs in the
queue and local deliveries being added to the, performance hits the floor.
-Jeff
ote interface to support this kind
of model without completely ripping out the guts of qmail.
I really *don't* want to write a completely new MTA, particularly when qmail
already does certain things very well. But there are definitely areas where
performance can be improved.
-Jeff
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 12:53:27PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
>Out of interest does the Netfilter have a large / battery backed cache
>to decrease the I/O / disk bottle neck ?
Yes. They have a chunk of NVRAM which ACKs the write request as soon as it's
committed there. This gives it the ability t
Jeff Mayzurk wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> >> By the way, does anyone have any interest in comparing notes on really high
> >> volume qmail configs? I'm looking for performance in the range of 200-250k
> >> remote deliveries per hour. We're halfway there
I wrote:
>> By the way, does anyone have any interest in comparing notes on really high
>> volume qmail configs? I'm looking for performance in the range of 200-250k
>> remote deliveries per hour. We're halfway there with relatively few
And Greg Cope replied:
"John R. Levine" wrote:
>
> >It takes approximately 6 hours for the script to complete, each
> >message invokes a separate qmail-inject process as the mails are
> >customised with the persons name / details etc. The concurrency only
> >seems to hit about 30- 40 while the script is still pumping m
In the immortal words of Oezguer Kesim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> reiserfs is available for many distributions. But even if not, it should
> not take more than half an hour on decent machines to patch a decent kernel
> and run the a new kernel with reiserfs included.
Honestly, I can't consider re
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> The inferiority was noted by yourself, so I don't see a flamebait here.
I think you're reading a little too much into what I'm saying. "Not
as good as veritas" is a far cry from "inferior," and is still a long
sight better than
>It takes approximately 6 hours for the script to complete, each
>message invokes a separate qmail-inject process as the mails are
>customised with the persons name / details etc. The concurrency only
>seems to hit about 30- 40 while the script is still pumping messages
>into qmail-inject.
I
Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> In 1-2 years, when reiserfs/xfs/jfs/ext3 or whatever is integrated
> into the mainline linux distributions, this will become much less of
> an issue. (Doesn't really address that LVM portion, but that's
> probably a lot less critical for most peop
Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Can you please expand on how an inferior file system for Solaris is in
> > any way "a big win over the various free unixes"? Especially under the
> > assumption of a constrained budget, please.
> Could we please dispense with the flamebait?
The
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's
> > > ever benchmarked it's performance with a large todo for the list.
Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's
> > ever benchmarked it's performance with a large todo for the list.
> Well, like I said, it's not necessarily best-of-breed, it's just
&
7;t have a media package around me that I can
verify that with. I _can_ verify that the current Binary License for
Solaris 8 does appear to include SDS bundled with it.
> Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's
> ever benchmarked it's performance with a lar
aris 7 it's part of the base distribution.
Solaris 7 definitely doesn't come with DiskSuite as part of the
base distribution. I know that I certainly don't have it.
Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's
ever benchmarked it's performance with a large todo for the list.
John
In the immortal words of John White ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware
> of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD.
Three words: journalling file system.
Four more words: integrated logical volume manager.
Solstice Dis
Michael T. Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 12 September 2000 at 16:06:16
-0400
> How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
By reducing disk bandwidth used on the queue disk(s). This is often
the limiting factor on a high-volume mail server running qmail.
The
- Original Message -
From: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 12 Sep 2000, at 16:06, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
>
> > How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
>
> Any system which doesn't scan directories in linear order but using
> binary search (keeping
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2000, at 16:06, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
Any system which doesn't scan directories in linear order but using
binary search (keeping directory entries sorted, or inde
to use that OS.
Finally, running Solaris x86 is not necessarily a wrong choice. It may
not be optimal according to your criteria, but it's not a wrong choice.
In other words, if he's happy with that OS and isn't trying to squeeze
performance to the limits, then he'll almost certa
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:56:35AM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote:
> I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon
>DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance
>(http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html)
>
> "publicfile
Better OS gurus than I can comment on exactly how Solaris bloats
network processes.
All I'll say is that qmail still performs admirably on the Solaris
latform.
However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware
of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD.
John
I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon
DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance
(http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html)
"publicfile achieves similar results under other operating systems, except Solaris.
Solaris adds an in
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:18:09PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a
> > todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once,
> > because of it's nature.
>
> However,
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:06:16PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
Basically, ext2fs sucks and FreeBSD FFS rocks (especially with
softupdates). I hear good things about ReiserFS. Now only if it was
stable. (don't come saying
How does a different filesystem, like ReiserFS help? Hypothetically?
- Original Message -
From: "Petr Novotny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a
> > todo queue, and it often
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Sep 2000, at 20:10, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> I don't know if it sucks more than sendmail. Sendmail doesn't have a
> todo queue, and it often has several processes spawning at once,
> because of it's nature.
However, sendmail (by default) also h
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 02:05:27PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:47:37 +0200, Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Peter> The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only
> Peter> injecting a message once. qmail is excellent at high-r
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:47:37 +0200, Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Peter> The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only
Peter> injecting a message once. qmail is excellent at high-rate
Peter> delivery of one message to 20.000 recipients.
Peter> It sucks
> I seem to remember someone saying that RAID5 is exactly the wrong kind
> of RAID for a mail queue. As I understand it, RAID5 does read of the
> same sector(?) of all spindles, recalculates parity, then a write back
> to all (only one?) spindles. This would be quite a write penalty if
> the RAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Are you using multiple spindes? Can I recommend that you do.
>
> Do you mean separate hard disks for the queue? .. The queue resides
> on a RAID5 hardware controlled array.
>
I seem to remember someone saying that RAID5 is exactly the wrong kind
of RAID for a
13 AM
Subject: Mass Mailout Performance Tips
> My apologies for the last incomplete message
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
> mailings with qmail.
> We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
&g
> OK, first, please forgive me for jumping in. I see this sort of
question
> occasionally, and it makes me wonder why so many steps were necessary. At
> one time, I had to send out just over a thousand messages to recipients
> across the Internet, and ran the Perl script (calling qmail's sendm
> > We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
> > a weekly/fortnightly basis.
(snip)
> I can get about 50K emails per hour using 400 remotes. That would take 10
> hours with your list. The qmail queue size seems to stabilaze between 10K
> and 15K during the run. The
> Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
> mailings with qmail.
> We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
> a weekly/fortnightly basis.
> I've looked through the archives and there are some excellent tips
> but
rge.
That's what conf-split helps with :)
The real trick to high mailinglist performance is only injecting a
message once. qmail is excellent at high-rate delivery of one message to
20.000 recipients. It sucks at handling 20.000 separate messages all
injected at the same time.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My apologies for the last incomplete message
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
> mailings with qmail.
> We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
> a weekly/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It takes approximately 6 hours for the script to complete, each
>message invokes a separate qmail-inject process as the mails are
>customised with the persons name / details etc.
You could get a large performance boost by attempting to deliver the
messages
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:38:42AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi thanks for the feedback
> >
> > How long is a "long long time"? What does vmstat show during
> > the injection
> > process? Is it one qmail-inject with lots of Bcc:s? Or one
> > qmail-inject
> > per recipient?
>
> It takes
message invokes a separate qmail-inject process as the mails are
customised with the persons name / details etc. The concurrency only
seems to hit about 30- 40 while the script is still pumping messages
into qmail-inject.
>
> > Does anyone have any tips on how to analyse the
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 11:13:04AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My apologies for the last incomplete message
>
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
> mailings with qmail.
> We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 em
My apologies for the last incomplete message
Hi,
Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
mailings with qmail.
We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
a weekly/fortnightly basis.
I've looked through the archives and ther
Hi,
Does anyone have some tips on getting peak performance out of mass
mailings with qmail.
We regularly send out newsletters to over 500,000 email address's on
a weekly/fortnightly basis.
I've looked through the archives and there are some excellent tips
but I'm still ho
Has anyone else noticed that the list seems to be performing sluggishly
today?
Normally i send a message to the list and it comes back within 10 seconds
(if that's believable, given the number of subscribers)
Today it seems to be taking upwards of the 2-5 minute range.
I know this is _more_ the
çééí äìôøï <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I managed to overcome my difficulties in starting qmail-pop3d with tcpserver
> supervised. but now, i see that performance is extremly poor. under inetd i
> got immediate response from the server at port 110 now, under tcpserver
> supe
Hello List
again
I managed to
overcome my difficulties in starting qmail-pop3d with tcpserver
supervised.
but now, i see that
performance is extremly poor.
under inetd i got
immediate response from the server at port 110
now, under
tcpserver supervised, it cralwes for ever.
anyone got an
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:30:47AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Motonori seems to have thought that the "smtp" service entry in
> master.cf controlled outgoing concurrency, when, in fact, it controls
> incoming concurrency.
I think still this is not correct. Actually there are two 'smtp', one
for in
"P.Y. Adi Prasaja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is your previous post:
>
>> He apparently confused incoming concurrency with outgoing
>> concurrency.
>
>What are you trying to say in this regard?
Motonori seems to have thought that the "smtp" service entry in
master.cf controlled outgoing co
"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 4 August 2000 at 09:37:29 -0400
> >
> > Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3
> > MTA timedns timedns timedns
> > qmail 155 1250 127 1230 127 1235
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 07:58:20AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> No, I'm not wrong. If you're going to "correct" someone, please check
> your facts first.
oh .. well ...
Here is your previous post:
> He apparently confused incoming concurrency with outgoing
> concurrency.
What are you trying to say
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 4 August 2000 at 09:37:29 -0400
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 August 2000 at 10:14:56 -0400
> > >
> > > http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
> >
> >His methodology look
"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 August 2000 at 10:14:56 -0400
> >
> > http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
>
>His methodology looks reasonably sound, now that I can read the
>description of it. And he seems entirely aware
"P.Y. Adi Prasaja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 08:14:32AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>> He apparently confused incoming concurrency with outgoing
>> concurrency. Luckily, Postfix defaults to 50, so the results are still
>> valid.
>
>Then you wrong either :-)
No, I'm not
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 08:14:32AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> >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 apparent
"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
>contro
Irwan Hadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
>
>I saw, at least at evaluation 3, postfix beat qmail ;)
Check again. qmail won all three tests. In Evaluation 3, qmail
finished in ~125 seconds, and Postfix took over 150 seconds--next to
last place.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 08:32:37PM -0600, Irwan Hadi wrote:
> I saw, at least at evaluation 3, postfix beat qmail ;)
BTW, still don't know how about exact configuration that the author's
using while doing the experiments.
If this information could be gathered from:
http://www.kyoto.wide
At 10:14 AM 8/2/00 -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> > http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/
>
>Just noticed that this is now available in English:
>
> http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
>
>-Dave
I saw, at least at evaluation 3, postfix beat qmail ;)
Dave Sill wrote:
> Fernando Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Im wondering what can I change to improve the performance of my
> >mailing list, I already read the documentation and found a lot of thinks
> >like the number of paralell proccess and other
Fernando Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Im wondering what can I change to improve the performance of my
>mailing list, I already read the documentation and found a lot of thinks
>like the number of paralell proccess and other things.
>I really need a great p
Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 August 2000 at 09:35:52 -0500
> On 02-Aug-2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> > I don't think it's quite as secure as qmail
>
> Would you care to shed some light on why you don't think so? Not to
> ignite flames but for informational purposes. I use both q
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 August 2000 at 10:14:56 -0400
> > http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/
>
> Just noticed that this is now available in English:
>
> http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
His methodology looks reasonably sound, now that I can read th
The multiple UIDs provide a few failsafes, if nothing else, whereby one
broken / buggy / replaced binary can't do damage to files it doesn't own.
DJB has comments about this in the readmes, if I'm not mistaken.
- Original Message -
From: "Ronny Haryanto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 02-Aug-
On 02-Aug-2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> 1) Postfix only uses a single uid. qmail uses six.
Why is using more than one uid better? What sort of security problem
would using one uid potentially pose?
> 2) Wietse's code is buggier than Dan's. Check the historical record.
> (To be fair, *everyone's* code
Ronny Haryanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 02-Aug-2000, Dave Sill wrote:
>> I don't think it's quite as secure as qmail
>
>Would you care to shed some light on why you don't think so?
Two reasons:
1) Postfix only uses a single uid. qmail uses six.
2) Wietse's code is buggier than Dan's. Che
On 02-Aug-2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> I don't think it's quite as secure as qmail
Would you care to shed some light on why you don't think so? Not to
ignite flames but for informational purposes. I use both qmail and
postfix and it is very interesting to understand not just the
strengths, but also t
> http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/
Just noticed that this is now available in English:
http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
-Dave
Fernando Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Irwan Hadi wrote:
>
>> At 08:45 PM 8/1/00 -0300, you wrote:
>> >
>> > Im setting a mailing list system that will require a VERY good
>> >performance. After search for a lot of options, Ive decided to
At 10:24 AM 8/2/00 -0300, Fernando Almeida wrote:
>Ive just read the postfix documentation, and I would like to know about
>how secure it is. Its know that qmail is a very secure system
qmail will not be a secure system anymore if you delete the rcpthosts file
which makes it open relay.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Fernando Almeida wrote:
> Irwan Hadi wrote:
>
> > At 08:45 PM 8/1/00 -0300, you wrote:
> > >
> > > Im setting a mailing list system that will require a VERY good
> > >performance. After search for a lot of options, Ive decided to u
Irwan Hadi wrote:
> At 08:45 PM 8/1/00 -0300, you wrote:
> >
> > Im setting a mailing list system that will require a VERY good
> >performance. After search for a lot of options, Ive decided to use qmail
> >because I think it is the most quick and configurable MT
Im setting a mailing list system that will require
a VERY good
performance. After search for a lot of options, Ive decided to use
qmail
because I think it is the most quick and configurable MTA.
Im wondering what can I change to improve the performance
of my
mailing list, I already
Fernando Costa de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 28 July 2000 at 18:04:35
-0300
>
> Im wondering if there is a list manager that deliveries emails
> according with the domain, in a single smtp connection. Let me explain
> better:
> Im trying to implement a newsletter mail system,
1 - 100 of 320 matches
Mail list logo
