On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote: > Remember that we're talking about sending one message to a large number of > addresses on the same remote host. In general qmail is faster, but I think in > this case any MTA that does multiple rcpt to's will be quicker. if the effect latency of the connection is greater than the bandwidth between the end systems multiple connections will complete faster than multiple rcpts. In general this is true: the latency of my dialup connection is a greater effect than the bandwidth on sending messages), the latency between my ISP and the rest of the Internet is greater than its bandwidth... 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 Richard
- Re: [Q] qmail speed "again" Dave Sill
- 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
