** Sometime around 06:54 -0800 03/13/00, Russ Allbery said:
>Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> writes:
>
> > The last two are OK, but I'm not convinced about the first two: in
> > 'normal' delivery, there's just *one* copy of the message and it gets
> > routed all over hell and gone... is the CPU to make and manage all those
> > extra copies trivial?
>
>Basically, yes. :) Compared to the amount of CPU that it takes to
>analyze bounces, figure out what address bounced, etc. it's pretty
>trivial. And that analysis doesn't even always work.
>
> > even if trivial, how does it end up being _reduced_ utilization.
>
>Because your bounce handling suddenly becomes trivial, and as a result
>your mailing lists get cleaned of bad addresses *much* faster and more
>thoroughly than any process that requires human invention (as bounce
>handling without VERP does with depressing frequency).
SmartBounce has better than 97% bounce recognition without using VERP
(though it optionally supports VERP as well), so the human
intervention is pretty minimal -- and in many of those cases, there's
nothing for even a human to go on.
However, like all automated processes, it _does_ require a certain
amount of CPU and I/O ("The Killer"(tm)) for processing.
__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio Got Bounces? <http://www.smartbounce.com/>
vince@vjs.org Got Jokes? <http://www.humournet.com/>
Got Spam? <http://www.cauce.org/>
References:
|
|
