On 8 Sep 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > False. QMQP makes a huge difference in the speed of message injection > over a typical modem link. How huge is ``huge''? Ten times faster? 5 percent faster? How is the difference affected by the size of messages? How is the difference affected by SMTP pipelining? How is the difference affected when multiple concurrent connections are used (amortizing RTT-induced delays in SMTP)? How many people using ``a typical modem link'' send enough email to feel that ``huge difference''? Oh, BTW, are you ever going to make any comment about the VERP expansion snafu in qmail-send when messages are delivered to local virtual domains? ;) --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
- Re: QMQP may eat your mail and its bounces Matthias Andree
- Re: QMQP may eat your mail and its bounces Alex Pennace
- Re: QMQP may eat your mail and its bounces Matthias Andree
- Re: QMQP may eat your mail and its bounces D. J. Bernstein
- Re: QMQP may eat your mail and its bounces Matthias Andree
- Re: QMQP may eat your mail and its bounces D. J. Bernstein
- QMQP may make qmail-send unable to send and b... Matthias Andree
- Suggestion to fix the "bounce doesn'... Matthias Andree
- Re: Suggestion to fix the "boun... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Suggestion to fix the "... Matthias Andree
- Re: QMQP speed (Was: QMQP may eat your mail and its b... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: QMQP speed (Was: QMQP may eat your mail and i... Matthias Andree
- Re: QMQP speed (Was: QMQP may eat your mail a... Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: QMQP speed (Was: QMQP may eat your ma... Matthias Andree
