"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 4 August 2000 at 09:37:29 -0400 > > > > Eval 1 Eval 2 Eval 3 > > MTA time dns time dns time dns > > qmail 155 1250 127 1230 127 1235 > > Postfix 184 1375 168 1290 161 1330 > > exim 645 475 161 450 157 451 > > SMTPfeed 215 610 160 442 157 461 > > zmailer 1530 1675 357 1260 360 1300 > >I read the time on eval 1 for qmail as 20 seconds. Well, maybe 22. >There's a very sharp bend in both DNS and SMTP curves at that point, >and only completely trivial activity after that. Ah, so you're looking at the time to deliver something like 97-99% of the messages. I'm looking at the 100% times, which tend to be dominated by a couple of slow remote servers. I'd like to see the raw numbers in addition to the graphs. -Dave
- Re: Mailing list performance David Dyer-Bennet
- Anti Virus Slider
- Re: Anti Virus Robin S. Socha
- RE: Anti Virus Slider
- Re: Anti Virus Robin S. Socha
- Re: Anti Virus Jason Haar
- Re: Anti Virus Alexander Pennace
- Re: Anti Virus Eric Cox
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance Irwan Hadi
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: Mailing list performance P.Y. Adi Prasaja
- Re: Mailing list performance Dave Sill
- Re: why qmail is more secure, was: Mailing list performa... Ronny Haryanto