Michael T. Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 21 July 2000 at 10:55:39
-0400
> I would have to agree with the multiple connections == bad neighbour behaviour
> (if this is true).
>
> I might encourage re-ordering of sends to have parallel, per-MX queues ...
>
> msg1 -> mx1 (in progress)
> msg2 -> mx2 (start another process)
> msg3 -> mx1 (queue and send on same connection as #1 when #1 is done)
> msg4 -> mx3 (start another process)
> msg5 -> mx2 (queue and send on same connection as #2 when #2 is done)
This is very hard to do, and expensive. And it would slow down mail
delivery, both overall and to each destination. And it would increase
disk IO. Why would one want to do this?
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
