I think that the benefit of a pre-scan was that it would allow you to bulk messages by
destination smtp.host, not by destination recipient mail address domain. Thus making
bigger bulk savings where multiple domains are served by an smtp host, virtual hosting
f'rinstance.
I think, though, that it'd probably be 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other, I can't
see it providing much advantage unless it was reducing the number of made and broken
connections per mail sent by a significant ammount.
d.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Webb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 February 2003 10:06
> To: 'James Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Improving RemoteDelivery performance
>
>
> As a friend of mine just pointed out "let the DNS server do it".
> The first time you ask for a record may take time, but the second time
> it should be fast. So I'm not sure a queue pre-scan may be useful after
> all.
>
> -- Jason
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 11 February 2003 10:01
> > To: James Developers List
> > Subject: RE: Improving RemoteDelivery performance
> >
> >
> > > As for pre-scanning the queue and caching resolutions I
> > like the idea.
> > > However, I'm not sure how well it would work for hosts that use a
> > > round-robin style DNS to load balance mail. I have a
> > feeling they may
> > > not like it, but I suppose we'd just have to see.
> >
> > I think you'd have to bulk per domain, not MX or you'd have
> > to deal with cached MX records that expired and similar messy
> > boundary conditions.
> >
> > d.
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
