On Mon 1999-04-12 (13:13), Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
> > >to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
> >
> > No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
> > Sendmail only wins when the message is huge.
>
> Actually, if you are unfortunate enough to have a list of addresses sorted
> by the right side of the @, qmail can be a big loser here. This is
> because it will completely overload many remote hosts if there are a bunch
> of recipients. eg. concurrencyremote = 120, you have 200 users
> @somedomain, qmail will sit there with 120 connections to somedomain's
> mailserver open while they all crawl along because somedomain can't handle
> 120 connections at once.
>
> qmail is great that way at inflicting remote DoS attacks against other
> mailers.
Well, the obvious question is why do mailers accept connections that they
cannot handle? If the remote host accepts the mail it should be prepared to
deal with it.
- Keith
--
Keith Burdis - MSc (Com Sci) - Rhodes University, South Africa
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW : http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~keith/
IRC : Panthras JAPH
"Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from a perl script"
Standard disclaimer.
---
