On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -0000, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>>> Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
>
>Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it, so Bcc or not is
of no concern, is it?
Say you're running a list with 20000 subscribers, you cat the
mail to qmail-inject with as many recipients as possible, no?
>Since the invocation happens just the once for the all recipients, there is
>no advantage to using qmail-queue (and some disadvantages if you ask me).
40000 e-mail addresses would make for some small problems ...
have to split it up somewhat, I'd say.
>On the matter of comparison to spammers,
I'd prefer "serious mailing-list" ...
>here's what you need to do to get
>comparable results:
>
>1. Turn off all disk I/O
Me too.
>2. Ignore the SMTP transaction
?
>3. Don't care if a recipient sees the mail zero or more times
No good for a mailing-list
>4. Ignore system and network failures
Hmm... Disregard the possibility of your system failing, but a
serious mailing-list can't ignore remote systems failing.
>If you want to go part way down this path I suggest putting /var/qmail/queue
>on a memory-based file system rather than twiddling fsync() calls in the code.
Sounds good.
>FWIW. The best I've seen out of a single box Pentium with one or two high
>speed spindles is around 100K per hour. The systems tend to run out of queue
>disk I/O. (This of course is gross generalization as most people will
>realise, but it gives a ballpark expectation for an unmodified qmail system).
Therefore memory-based fs, yes.
>>> I'm envisioning using xargs to distribute the rcpt addresses to
>
>No point. Put the recipients in bcc: headers and only invoke qmail-inject
>the once.
So if there is a Bcc: header in the mail catted to qmail-inject,
it will be used and discarded, right?
--
#include <std_disclaim.h> Lorens Kockum
