"David F. Skoll" <[email protected]> wrote: > Michiel Brandenburg wrote: > >> What might be a nice tradeoff is using the socket map feature of >> sendmail to hook sendmail into mimedefang that way. Dunno how that >> would impact performance but it might be a nice tradeoff. > > Performance impact is severe. We used the sockemap -> MIMEDefang > path in an older version of our commercial software, but we had > to remove it and use a different technique because of the horrible > performance.
Have you used it for standard maps? (e.g. access or virtusertable) YES => Have you tried to reduce (horrible) number of lookups issued by "any map" sendmail.cf design? >> As I recall the socket map protocol is pretty lightweight but might >> still be too slow, in my case it works fine even with about 1/2 mails >> per sec. > > We tend to concentrate our optimizations on medium-sized > installations, by which I mean about 25 msgs/second (= about 2 > million/day) or higher. The low-end ones aren't worth worrying about > just because the load is easily managed. -- [pl>en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : [email protected] "My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
