Richard Welty <rwelty@neworks.net> writes:
> the problem is that qmail assumes that bandwidth is cheap. on a bad day
> in MAE-East, a day when nobody's favorite porn site is loading
> particularly fast because of 20% packet loss in the overloaded tree of
> gigaswitches, bandwidth is most assuredly Not Cheap, or really, even
> available. in such an environment, intentionally generating extra
> packets because of a mail delivery theory is pretty #@$#!##
> irresponsible.
Do you believe e-mail traffic to be of sufficient quantity to be even
noticeable at a high-traffic interchange point like MAE-East under high
load conditions?
This strikes me as micro-optimization. Next to web and news, let alone
something like streaming audio or video, e-mail is barely a blip until you
get down to the individual network level, at which point I agree that
qmail may not be the best choice for all circumstances.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
