> I think you should get information on latency for message from a machine
> running a large distribution lst to see where it's spending its time
probably waiting for those slug domains which have either
* slow links
* slow dns
* are no longer in services
but, that is just a quick guess ;) note that all of these really are not
dependent upon whether you do one connection and pipe a bazillion messages
over it, or a bazillion connection of one message each. Imho,
i still think that the relatively random distribution of target
addresses for a server makes this relatively moot, unless
you are bulk-mailing 300,000 messages to AOL. however,
in that case, shouldn't the bulk mailer just talk SMTP and
save everyone the hassle?
-- craig
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Keith Burdis
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Dave Sill
- helping qmail vs. lame MTAs John R. Levine
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Marc Slemko
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Mark Delany
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Dave Sill
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Keith Burdis
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Stefan Paletta
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" ddb
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Richard Letts
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Craig I. Hagan
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Silver CHEN
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Keith Burdis
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Marc Slemko
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Keith Burdis
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Marc Slemko
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" ddb
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Timothy L. Mayo
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Russ Allbery
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Timothy L. Mayo
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Marc Slemko
