> > Not true. It simply means that the remote system would have to
> > implement VERP when qmail-remote tells the smtpd that the envelope
> > sender is list-@[]@host.example.com. Unfortunately, qmail-remote and
> > VERP-compatible smtp servers do not cooperate in that manner.
All this talk of delivery optimization and VERP actually raises a few
question for me:
1. Is there a seperate instance of qmail-remote for each bcc: header?
2. If so, how does one message with many recipients save memory or run
faster? Wouldn't there be an identical number of messages in memory as
sending many messages with one recipient? I'm assuming the answer is no,
otherwise it wouldn't be recommended, right?
4. Does the existing qmail-verh patch work on the body of the message? The
archives suggest that this would be VERB, not VERP or VERH.
5. If qmail-verh won't do replacements on the body, did anyone ever write a
qmail-verb patch?
6. Does implementing VERB or VERH negate the benefits of 1 message, many
recipients?
Lyris and L-soft both claim that their mtas are better (faster) because they
will do "domain batching". If they are not misleading the masses, has
anyone thought of ways (or developed patches) to implement this behavior in
qmail? Russ?
Perhaps this is all misguided conversation, but it seems to me that most of
the threads on the list fall into 1 of 2 categories:
1. Qmail doesn't work (read as "I broke it" * ).
2. How can I get _______ to work better? (Expect "What problem are you
trying to solve?")
What are people's thoughts? Feel free to respond off-list if you feel this
is off-topic. I am thinking of assembling a document containing (founded
upon) the best advice from the gurus, because these sorts of issues so often
make it to the list (and past the archives).
--joshua.
*often: "I broke it, but am so used to paying too much for crappy software,
that I naturally assume that something is wrong with the program."
