-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Dave Sill writes:
> All I said was that sendmail+local-caching-only-BIND was slower than
> sendmail+remote-name-server when I tried it. I didn't blame anything
> on sendmail, and I don't claim to be BIND configuration expert.
This is what you said:
>>> I tried that with sendmail and found that the nameserver was a
>>> resource hog and it was actually slowing things down.
The implication is that your name server was bogging down sendmail. In the
real world this generally does not happen unless your name server is
woefully underpowered (something I find suprising for a qmail proponent,
since qmail almost universally requires relatively powerful machines), in
which case the entire machine is bogged down. Name servers as a rule need
lots of physical memory to store their caches.
[...]
> Sendmail does more than one DNS lookup per recipient (I heard it was
> three on comp.mail.sendmail). I believe qmail only does one, also from
> that same thread on comp.mail.sendmail.
This is what you said before:
>>> Haven't tried it with qmail, though--qmail does fewer DNS lookups.
Please do not present third-hand hearsay as facts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNazjCp6VRH7BJMxHAQGSfwP/XPEUdIPFOoESqL7qxk5MNOO+eDzXTE9o
n9aP2VJtaTZ2ll83aScyP55UfpiYzY4eBi8ArfUXw6Pz97hmqEMxiWrUStgcjMqC
qdX6lYnZqvdJ5jsG00LCGYpl76lTakHbm/dvVV5nKnpl/j/ri9aO0APovKcwphb7
DCWUZikPTzo=
=Rc+I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rich Pieri <rich.pieri@prescienttech.com> / When not in use, Happy Fun Ball
Sysmonster, Unix Wrangler / should be returned to its special
Prescient Technologies, Inc. / container and kept under
I speak for myself, not PTI or SWEC / refrigeration.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
