Mark Mentovai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I use "should" in the same manner that it is used in the documents which
>define the very standards and practices over which we are arguing. In order
>to be a good 'net neighbor, an MTA (note that I am not singling any MTA out
>here) should not open 25 SMTP connections to the same host to transfer the
>same message specifying a different destination address each time when it
>can just as easily open a single connection and specify 25 destination
>addresses.
And which RFC says that? What is the universal "maximum simultaneous
SMTP connections" constant? It seems odd not to allow more capable
systems to use more connections to speed the flow of mail. Imagine if
AOL could only keep one (or ten or 100) SMTP connection(s) open to
Earthlink/Mindspring.
>Is it as fast as possible? In the situation above, what I suggest should
>happen is actually faster and makes better use of network resources than
>qmail's current implementation.
You *are* familiar with the concept of latency and aware of the number
of round trips that SMTP requires?
>I use qmail because it meets most of my needs better than anything else I've
>seen or used. That doesn't mean I have to accept everything that it does as
>the best possible implementation given current standards and practices. If
>we all were to do that, very little progress would be made. Never assume
>that there is no room for improvement.
Hah. It is DJB's ability to see past the limitations of existing
practices that led to the quantum performance improvements in
qmail. And that's nothing compared to the improvements possible with
the IM2000 infrastructure he proposed here yesterday. qmail 1.x is not
going to change. Dan's already thought more about this issue for qmail
2.x than all of us combined, so we should probably wait and see what
it does before we go off half cocked. And for really fundamental
improvements to the e-mail infrastructure, IM2000 is the place to
direct your efforts.
>Am I really the only one that feels this way?
No, Wieste Venema agrees with you.
>Does nobody else agree with me or recognize my concerns?
I'm sure you're not alone, but as someone who's lived with qmail for
five years, I have to say that the periodic Chicken Little cries that
the sky is falling simply have no basis in reality. If the single-RCPT
issue is a make-or-break for you, use Postfix instead. It's pretty
darned good, too.
-Dave
