At 08:42 AM Tuesday 4/13/99, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dave Sill 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.
>>
>> somedomain is poorly configured. Should qmail assume all sites are
>> poorly configured? Should properly configured sites suffer because
>> some sites are poorly run?
>
>Geesh, this sort of crazy idealism is why qmail gets a bad name.
It may well be. Your trolling is pretty much the other side of the coin.
It'd be nice if you added value rather than repeated what has been said on
this list a number of times before.
Much of what you say is based on speculation rather than fact. And what
little useful discussion you have to contribute is loaded with words like
"crazy", "idealism", "silly", "hammering", "abusive", "extremely unfriendly",
"flaw", etc. Do you seriously expect people to listen to you when you
degenerate into that sort of language?
Furthermore, to claim that we are not interested in running "functional and
interoperable mail systems" just tells us that you have no clue about the
people on this list and what they do. What did you actually want to achieve
with this sort of inflamatory remark? Surely not constructive discussion?
As a small note, the systems I have setup running qmail have probably
delivered well over 500+ million mails to just about every domain on the
planet. Others on this list have done much more, so saying we have no
interest in functional mail systems is a load or rubbish at best and clear
bait at worst.
In short, we've heard your story already, ok? In the spirit of publicly
available sources, either say something new, change qmail in ways you think
are better and share it with the rest of the world or be prepared to be
recognized as yet another "whinger" who finds it easier to complain than do
something.
So what's it to be? Are you more interested in the easy game of flame or
are you actually interested in doing something useful?
Regards.
