On 12 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ...the root problem is qmail's rudeness in this area.
>
> You may have a point here. Is there a well-defined rubric within which
> we can assert, "It is ill-mannered to consume all available
> connections to a remote server, just because those services are
> needed?" Could be, I suppose--that's a question for admins.
The point is that, in a lot of cases, they aren't needed.
If you have 500000 messages to go out with 100 messages to each of 5000
hosts, the claim that it is necessary to open 100 connections at once to
any single remote server is obviously wrong. You can, in general, keep
your system "busy" (where busy is often "running into the low
concurrencyremote limit forced by qmail's design") just fine without
opening a huge number of connections to any one server. Yet if you feed
qmail the addresses in an order sorted by hostname, that is essentially
what it will do.
Heck, even if you had 500000 messages to go to 1 host that doesn't mean
you have to open 500000 connections (well, bounded only by your local
configuration and qmail's limits) to the remote host.
You can claim it is just "broken mailers" that have trouble under such
situations, but I have never seen a single "nonbroken mailer" by that
definition.
