I understand the motivation David, I really do. But you don't
seem to understand who qmail works.
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 09:12:48PM +0000, David L. Nicol wrote:
> What the people with the problem are asking for appears to
> be for qmail to not split up identical mails intended for
> multiple recipients at identical hosts. These are real problems
> and poo-pooing them as degenerate cases or something produces nothing.
No. What people are asking for is that qmail not treat a message
with multiple recipients as separate messages to those recipients
if the recipients are to be routed through the same SMTP server.
Unfortunately, they're unclear about what they mean.
If I have a message to 1M different FQDN which all use the same
MX, do I want to split, or don't I?
> In terms of modifying, this might not be the "extensive
> rewrite" that "life with qmail" claims it will be. I see two
> parts to change:
>
> We want (1)the part that splits messages with multiple recipients
> to group by mail-host-name and merely split by mail-host-name,
> and also (2) that qmail-remote can issue multiple rcpt-to instructions
> in these cases. That is all. Two patches. Three, with (3)
> record-keeping
> regarding who has received and who has errorred adjusted to work with
> (2.)
>
>
> People who are running mailing lists (which need VERPS) behind
> low-bandwidth
> links are not covered by this patch proporal: They need to form
> cooperatives
> and rent servers with good connections.
Ok, you're vastly oversimplifying how complex those changes are,
and mistaken in the need to patch qmail-remote. And you're excluding
the people who "need" the the modification the most from the umbrella.
> man pages indicate ... that qmail-remote "sends the message
> to one or more recipients at a remote host." Which means that
> it still hasn't been split up when qmail-remote gets it, and that
> qmail-remote is the only program that would need to be patched.
No it doesn't.
> Is this accurate, that messages withmultiple recipients are
> associated with a single queue entry until they are delivered
> and cleaned up, and that all delivery multiplexing happens within
> qmail-remote?
No.
> If so, qmail-remote is the only part of the system
> which needs to be tweaked, and the groundwork is already there.
And as such, you conclusion is incorrect.
Take a look at INTERNALS.
John
