On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 03:36:20PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> >>
> >> You got me. Of course you're right. I meant to say that when
> >> delivering a single message "immediately", i.e., not from the queue,
> >> sendmail will only open one connection at a time.
> >
> >No, that is one of the circumstances I'm referring to. If two
> >incoming connections each deliver a mail to the same remote
> >destination, sendmail will happily fork() for both and deliver them
> >at the same time.
>
> That doesn't contradict what I said. By "single message", I was
> excluding multiple messages.
Err ofcourse.. but opening multiple connections for one message would be slightly
ridiculous :)
> Do you agree that a locally injected, immediate delivery mode message
> with multiple recipients will be delivered serially by a single
> sendmail process using one connection at a time? Of course, delivery
> attempts that fail on the first try will be queued and available to
> queue runners, but that's not my point.
Yes I fully agree on that point. My point was that sendmail under certain
circumstances will have multiple connections to a single host, but no concurrency
limiting there, apart from sendmail pausing when the load gets too high.
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
