Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.Hawaii.Edu!news.lava.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!206.149.24.18!excalibur.flash.net!ultranews.duc.auburn.edu!news.fsu.edu!nucmar!books From: books@nucmar.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.smail,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Sendmail vs. Smail... Followup-To: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.smail,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:13:35 GMT Organization: Florida State University Lines: 40 Message-ID: <58rvbf$r6t@news.fsu.edu> References: <57tf61$gq7@raven.eva.net> <58h6r1$8ik@ezekiel.eunet.ie> <1996Dec1005.15.53.2968@koobera.math.uic.edu> <58mchc$d6o@ezekiel.eunet.ie> <1996Dec1121.15.26.13717@koobera.math.uic.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: nucmar.physics.fsu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.mail.sendmail:35209 comp.mail.smail:2717 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:32631 D. J. Bernstein (djb@koobera.math.uic.edu) wrote: : In article <58mchc$d6o@ezekiel.eunet.ie>, Nick Hilliard <nick@eunet.ie> wrote: : > ... at the expense of running 10 extra delivery daemons on your local system : > and using 10x traffic. : What percentage of your mail volume consists of messages with 10 : recipients on the same system? : > this is a mighty inefficient use of resources. : Profile. Don't speculate. Measurements at three sites showed that qmail : generates less traffic than sendmail. (The biggest savings in each case : came from DNS lookups.) : > CAPITAL LETTERS or not, if an ISP or end-user system cannot handle 10 RCPT's : > on one SMTP connection, that's their problem and it's their job to fix it. : Sorry, they don't have the money to buy the extra network capacity. The : fact remains that you've failed to get the mail through. Now wait a second. This all started out with someone saying that sending to two users with an extra reciept line was less efficient that sending two messages on two seperate connections. Then I see the "parralel works better than serial" (OWTTA) every time. The arguements don't add up. Obviously (that word you like so well) if I send one message with 20 extra characters that is a better use of bandwidth then sending 2 3K messages with two connections and twice the overhead. Wether I send them when the other end is good at excepting connections or not is fairly irrelevant to the overhead issue. Or, with todays attachments, which is going to be more likely to succeed, one 3MB file with rcpt to:'s or two three meg files? There are some things you don't need to profile to see. I know we are computer poeple (g word left out), but we can still show some common sense. Also, how does sending my messages with multiple recpt to's for identical messages stop me from sending my other mail in parrallel? Roger