On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:31:52 -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
2a. if -l: compare host name of envelope recipients. If same as local host
name, deliver locally with qmail-local.
2b. deliver multi-recipient message remotely (concurrent with 2a). If -l:
remove all recipients with host part
On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 08:50:33AM +, Frederik Lindberg wrote:
Was looking for something optimized to low bandwidth settings.
*slaps self* I'm pretty forgetful some times. So let me ask some more
questions:
2a. if -l: compare host name of envelope recipients. If same as local host
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Bruce Guenter wrote:
1. message queued.
2a. if -l: compare host name of envelope recipients. If same as local host
name, deliver locally with qmail-local.
2b. deliver multi-recipient message remotely (concurrent with 2a). If -l:
remove all recipients with host part
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:50:32AM +, Frederik Lindberg wrote:
Hard, but not impossible. How would you envision such hooks?
How about a simplified scheme: All mail with recipient host matching the
local host is passed to an external program for delivery. The external
program takes
Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... Qmail will also do
pretty well when the mail volume is low, although there are certain
pathological situations where Qmail will fail miserably with low mail
volume.
What situations are you referring to?
Also, Qmail will do poorly in the extreme upper end of the
Frederik Lindberg writes:
Qmail is fastest under well-connected conditions when the recipients
per host are close to 1 (most "normal traffic"). Still, it would be
nice to improve it in more marginal situations as well. QMTP to smarthosts
and other qmail hosts would go a long way, although
Dave Sill wrote:
Say you send a message to a list of 10,000 addresses using
sendmail. What's the first thing it does? It looks up the MX for each
recipient so it can sort by MX and minimize the number of connections.
Why is that? Lets say you have to deliver to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
Say you send a message to a list of 10,000 addresses using
sendmail. What's the first thing it does? It looks up the MX for each
recipient so it can sort by MX and minimize the number of connections.
I doubt very much that that's
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 8 November 1999 at 17:39:02 -0500
Pard'n me, but how does an additional DNS lookup for every recipient end
up reducing the overall amount of DNS traffic?
qmail does fewer DNS lookups than sendmail, and that should be
Not
Stefan Paletta writes:
Sam wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
different domains will result in only 5,000 DNS queries. Meanwhile, each
instance of qmail-remote should diligently issue a DNS query - for a
grand sum of 10,000 queries overall.
When we're talking about lists of that size, you will
"Jim B" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ummm.. yeah thanks. But I want to know *why* it's faster.
I know there's a doc that explains 3 different methods, this being one of
them... and it shows situations why one may be preferable over the other.
Do you know what doc I'm talking about?
In a pathological case, qmail can use a lot more network bandwidth
because of the duplication of messages going to the same system. In
practice this is rarely a serious problem. Taking into account the
*decreased* DNS traffic, it's even more rarely a problem.
It depends heavily on the
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
To start with, you have to do a HUGE number of extra DNS
lookups to determine what the recipient systems ARE.
As opposed to the "one SMTP transaction per remote recipient" strategy
that is able to deliver messages without the need to figure out
Pavel Kankovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
To start with, you have to do a HUGE number of extra DNS
lookups to determine what the recipient systems ARE.
As opposed to the "one SMTP transaction per remote recipient" strategy
that is able to deliver
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
Pavel Kankovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
To start with, you have to do a HUGE number of extra DNS
lookups to determine what the recipient systems ARE.
As opposed to the "one SMTP transaction per remote
Pavel Kankovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed. But are there any EXTRA lookups done? ("Extra" is the keyword
here...read original DDB's text again.)
The answer is: NO unless the implementation is incredibly stupid.
Like sendmail? :-) Sendmail is notorious for unnecessary DNS lookups.
I
"Frank Tegtmeyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's amazing how qmail haters (here in Germany) always reduced the
discussion about qmail to this special case - it may be bad discussion
style but I also think that there is more need to support this type of
setup than the "normal" qmail
We have the source; let's fix it.
What the people with the problem are asking for appears to
be for qmail to not split up identical mails intended for
multiple recipients at identical hosts. These are real problems
and poo-pooing them as degenerate cases or something produces nothing.
In
I understand the motivation David, I really do. But you don't
seem to understand who qmail works.
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 09:12:48PM +, David L. Nicol wrote:
What the people with the problem are asking for appears to
be for qmail to not split up identical mails intended for
multiple
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:24:23PM +, David L. Nicol wrote:
John White flamed forth:
man pages indicate ... that qmail-remote "sends the message
to one or more recipients at a remote host." Which means that
it still hasn't been split up when qmail-remote gets it, and that
Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
multiple RCPT TOs?
I just spotted it the other day and meant to go back
Jim B writes:
Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
multiple RCPT TOs?
Because it's faster.
--
-russ
Russell Nelson writes:
Jim B writes:
Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
multiple RCPT TOs?
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
Because it's faster.
For the average message... :-)
-- Jeff
Could someone explain how qmail manages to be faster for average msgs. I
can't see how it would be.
- Eric
Jeff Hayward escribió:
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
Because it's faster.
For the average message... :-)
-- Jeff
Sam writes:
Russell Nelson writes:
Jim B writes:
Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
with 5 individual smtp connections instead of one smtp connection and
Eric Dahnke writes:
Could someone explain how qmail manages to be faster for average msgs. I
can't see how it would be.
The most-oft used MTA fiddles with hostnames while the DNS burns.
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software |
Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jim B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: qmail remote delivery logic
Jim B writes:
Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why
qmail
would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
Sam writes:
Russell Nelson writes:
Jim B writes:
Can someone point me at the location of a document that explains why qmail
would deliver, for example, a msg to 5 recipients at the same remote domain
with 5 individual smtp
Sam writes:
Yes. Even off a T1, there's a measurable difference between ~10 MB and ~1
MB worth of traffic.
And?? Don't hold us in suspense. What was the difference in delivery
times?
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 04:21:20PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Sam writes:
Yes. Even off a T1, there's a measurable difference between ~10 MB and ~1
MB worth of traffic.
And?? Don't hold us in suspense. What was the difference in delivery
times?
I was going to keep quiet but how
Thus said Jason Haar on Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:38 +1300:
We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here
sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively
taking our Internet link offline for the next several hours. Qmail being the
great
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 15:11:29 -0700 in Andy Bradford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus said Jason Haar on Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:38 +1300:
We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here
sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively
taking
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:36:38 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
We have a 64Kb Frame Relay link with burst to 128Kb. We have users here
sending their current favourite 3 Mb MP3 file to 30 friends - effectively
[...]
Fact: Sendmail would have used less bandwidth in this _specific_ situation.
In general -
Thus said "James J. Lippard" on 07 Nov 1999 17:12:54 MST:
Times are changing. Unified messaging is coming. Email, voice mail,
faxes, video mail, all will be the same thing. "User education" will
not be the answer--building the appropriate user interfaces and
designing the appropriate
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:22:43PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:
Thus said "James J. Lippard" on 07 Nov 1999 17:12:54 MST:
Times are changing. Unified messaging is coming. Email, voice mail,
faxes, video mail, all will be the same thing. "User education" will
not be the answer--building
On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 06:20:36PM -0600, Fred Lindberg wrote:
You could also look into QMQP over your link. [...]
AFAIK, Bruce Guenter's nullmailer does this and
can use QMTP to the smarthosts.
nullmailer can indeed use QMTP to smarthosts that support it, but it
explicitly has no support for
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Bruce Guenter wrote:
nullmailer can indeed use QMTP to smarthosts that support it, but it
explicitly has no support for local delivery. You could set up qmail
and nullmailer concurently and have qmail deliver all remote mail into a
virtual domain that calls up nullmailer
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:13:25AM +, Frederik Lindberg wrote:
nullmailer can indeed use QMTP to smarthosts that support it, but it
explicitly has no support for local delivery. You could set up qmail
and nullmailer concurently and have qmail deliver all remote mail into a
virtual
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Bruce Guenter wrote:
Hard, but not impossible. How would you envision such hooks?
Certainly, I am not going to add support to nullmailer to actually do
the delivery, but giving it a way to call an external program that could
is a reasonable option.
How about a
40 matches
Mail list logo
