At 01:38 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -0000, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>>>> Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
>>
>>Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
>
>qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it, so Bcc or not is
>of no concern, is it?
Incorrect. qmail-inject is *the* program that does look at headers. How did
you deduce the above after reading the man page for qmail-inject?
>Say you're running a list with 20000 subscribers, you cat the
>mail to qmail-inject with as many recipients as possible, no?
>
>>Since the invocation happens just the once for the all recipients, there is
>>no advantage to using qmail-queue (and some disadvantages if you ask me).
>
>40000 e-mail addresses would make for some small problems ...
>have to split it up somewhat, I'd say.
Incorrect. This is precisely how a "serious mailing-list" does it. Namely
ezmlm. Admittedly via qmail-queue, but the queue insertion costs and
sequences are the same.
>>On the matter of comparison to spammers,
>
>I'd prefer "serious mailing-list" ...
>
>>here's what you need to do to get
>>comparable results:
>>
>>1. Turn off all disk I/O
>
>Me too.
>
>>2. Ignore the SMTP transaction
>
>?
>
>>3. Don't care if a recipient sees the mail zero or more times
>
>No good for a mailing-list
>
>>4. Ignore system and network failures
>
>Hmm... Disregard the possibility of your system failing, but a
>serious mailing-list can't ignore remote systems failing.
You miss the point entirely. A spammer can get better "performance"
precisely because they don't need to worry about such things. A real list
cannot - as you re-state.
>>FWIW. The best I've seen out of a single box Pentium with one or two high
>>speed spindles is around 100K per hour. The systems tend to run out of queue
>>disk I/O. (This of course is gross generalization as most people will
>>realise, but it gives a ballpark expectation for an unmodified qmail system).
>
>Therefore memory-based fs, yes.
Nope. Memory-base fs don't tend to have high speed spindles I don't reckon.
>>>> I'm envisioning using xargs to distribute the rcpt addresses to
>>
>>No point. Put the recipients in bcc: headers and only invoke qmail-inject
>>the once.
>
>So if there is a Bcc: header in the mail catted to qmail-inject,
>it will be used and discarded, right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "used and discarded". Perhaps you should take
a closer look at the qmail-inject man page. That will answer these sort of
questions. But perhaps you mean that bcc: isn't retained in the outgoing
email header - correct. That's precisely why I suggested it rather than to:
or cc:
Regards.
