despite the assessment implied by ``Blech'' qmail is trivially an order
of magnitude faster than sendmail. i used to use sendmail on our list
machine and probably delivered as much mail as anyone with it (~400k
remote messages to people all over the internet from the #2 listserv
node). sendmail has a number of very clever optimizations related to dns
and tcp/ip however it has an enormous, glaring failure for a busy site.
it does no good to make 10% of the transaction time shrink to zero if
the remaining 90% is expanding toward infinity.
we considered contracting with eric to fix sendmail but qmail came along.
increase efficiency where it makes things happen faster. my guess is the
design of lsmtp is the model one should follow if you want efficiency.
ps.
qmail doesn't have queue-runners in the sense of sendmail and dan's
goal with qmail is maximum *security* with minimum delivery latency.
he's actually looked at the way things worked as part of making his
decisions (some of which i find annoyingly straightforward). see
www.qmail.org for relevant links.
-------- In reply to:
>Or, are there any mailers (or patched mailers) which cache MX
>records? It seems like an obvious place to increase efficiency,
>especially with busy mailing lists
I believe that sendmail already does this. That's why it takes
so long when starting up queue runners, especially in
"SortOrder=host" mode with version 8.7 sendmail. As I recall, Dan
Bernstein seems to think that doing something like this is a "bad
idea", and in qmail makes his goal the fastest possible start up of
queue runners without any pre-lookup at all. Blech.
---------------------
--
paul
pjg@acsu.Buffalo.EDU |public keys at:
pjg@ubvm | http://urth.acsu.Buffalo.EDU/~pjg/key.html
if the above contains opinions they are mine unless marked otherwise.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
