From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Feb 28 10:24:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA09638 for isp-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:24:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from cedb.dpcsys.com ([209.25.4.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA09633 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (dan@localhost) by cedb.dpcsys.com (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA12541; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:05:25 GMT Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:05:24 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Busarow To: Andy Cowan cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Exchange Server getting email In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970228151933.007ada10@waverider.net.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Andy Cowan wrote: > At 13:57 28/02/97 +0000, you wrote: > >This gets my vote too. UUCP is so much more efficient for routine batched > >mail collection. > > In what way - I'm not disagreeing - just curious. SMTP is designed for directly connected hosts. Sure, it has support for queueing, but it's only there to cover the infrequent cases when the destination host is down. In the case of dialup users we are looking at hosts with typical "uptimes" measured in minutes rather than months so the design is stretched a bit :) UUCP on the other hand was designed for batch transfers to hosts that connect at their whim. It wastes far fewer cycles checking to see if a host is available and it doesn't require any kludges (kicking off sendmail -qR) to deliver when the host does answer. Dan -- Dan Busarow 714 443 4172 DPC Systems / Beach.Net dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82