Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It means that a user sending a steady stream of 10 (small) > messages/sec over a dialup connection makes your system deal with > 600 messages/sec, which would normally take a T1. But this doesn't involve any real network connections - it's all on loopback. So it wouldn't saturate an actual T1, if that's what you were saying. Right? paul
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.... D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record ... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX rec... Dan Peterson
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling a... Vince Vielhaber
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record ... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record ... Scott Gifford
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.... Greg Owen
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record ... Scott Gifford
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX rec... Paul Jarc
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX... Greg White
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling a... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling a... Scott Gifford
- RE: Subtle qmail bug? (was Re: Handling an MX record of 0.... Greg Owen
