Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
> Conclusion: qmail does not need to send multiple copies of VERPed message
> if the destination SMTP server runs qmail (or any other VERP-enabled MTA
> if such MTA existed).
Without having looked at this closer (I claim to _remember_ from the
source code), I assume the address will be rewritten by qmail-send on
the host receiving the mail, for the rewriting mechanism is triggered by
the -@[] suffix. The message is queued and examined by qmail-send,
wheter it is delivered remotely or locally. But that leads away from the
subject.
There seems to be a parallel to that "qmail wastes bandwith" thread.
Regard the following as a RFC: What optimizations could be done to make
qmail save bandwith by not having multiple connections to remote hosts?
What aspects would have to be paid attention to? What could be done? You
see any problems?
That e.g. means that identical messages to several users at _one_ remote
host could bundled by providing several RCPT TO commands at SMTP level.
No features should become dropped (like VERPs).
Let me start with some things I have in mind (also from what others
wrote on this list!), please contribute...
- identical messages to several users at _one_ remote host can be
bundled by providing several RCPT TO commands at SMTP level, if VERPs
are _not used_.
- if the remote system is running qmail, the above can be done in
connection with VERPs, by providing the "magic" envelope sender address
with a trailing -@[].
- even more messages can be bundled if 'one' remote host is not defined
by the hostname, but smtproutes is checked too. E.g. smtproutes routes
@domaina and @domainb to the same host, so it should be possible to give
both recipient types (@domaina and @domainb) to the smarthost in one
SMTP session.
- I'm not that familiar with such techniques, but would it be possible
for a site to "bundle" several mail machines together, serving under
(virtually) the same hostname -> I think AOL does so, I cannot imagine
they only have one mail server ;-) Now, should all recipients be given
to one of those machines, or should load be spawned over several hosts?
Anyway, could that be decided by the local (sending) host at all?
- Would it be desireable (and I assume it is not) to overlook the queue
of messages to recycle SMTP connections in that way that all mail
(_several different_ messages) for a certain remote host is delivered,
once the connection is established? This seems to require a continuous
overlooking of the queue. (And, on my opinion, is not worth the load. =)
Regards,
Matthias
--
w e b f a c t o r y | matthias pigulla
www.webfactory.de [EMAIL PROTECTED]
