On 31 Jan 2010, at 14:58, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, David Lord wrote: >> On 30 Jan 2010 at 12:25, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >>> By all reasonable accounts, XMail is fast. Does anybody know how it stacks >>> up against the competition? Postfix, in particular, has held the speed >>> crown for a good while now. But XMail with this fast thread startup and >>> connection reuse could, I'm sure, be made to outflank Postfix even under >>> stress and with its connection cache enabled. >>> >> >> Here on my minimal server it's filters that take most >> of resources by orders of magnitude I'd guess. > > That is indeed what todays is the limiting factor of MTA's performance. > Pretty much everyone runs some sort of filters, checks RBLs, and so on, > which end up limiting performance far more than thread pooling and > connection caching. > Unless you use an MTA which run no filter, which perform no DNS > resolution, which does no RDNS checks,, which checks no RBLs, and so on.
That might be an ideal relay-only site, actually. If you had multiple MTAs, you could devote those with fewer such checks to outbound-only deliveries, mailing lists in particular. Then, spending as little time wasting remote SMTP startup/shutdown and new processes probably makes much more sense. I've already optimised DNS using large local caches, and would be willing to do almost no checks on client deliveries, only inbound SMTP server sessions. Those are always slow, because of authentication, TLS, mail processing, etc. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ xmail mailing list [email protected] http://xmailserver.org/mailman/listinfo/xmail
