Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:50:50 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@pipeline.ch> Cc: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@hub.freebsd.org>, scrappy@hub.org, nate@mt.sri.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: People getting automatically unsub'ed from -arch Message-ID: <v04205502b42a3d1099aa@[195.238.21.204]> In-Reply-To: <38047B0A.CC0C61BD@pipeline.ch> References: <19991012142522.57A98152AF@hub.freebsd.org> <38038AA5.45796B87@pipeline.ch> <v04205504b4293cb18531@[195.238.21.204]> <380395E7.2D38E200@pipeline.ch> <v04205500b42951a335e4@[195.238.21.204]> <38047B0A.CC0C61BD@pipeline.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:28 PM +0200 1999/10/13, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> You don't know all the hacks that they made to sendmail to make >> it perform at previously unheard of levels. ;-) > > Preciously unheard levels for sendmail? No, previously unheard of levels -- period. > Nice paper! Most of the suggestions are already realized in qmail and > postfix. I realize that Postfix already addresses many of these issues. I was involved in the earlier stages of the beta testing for Postfix, and it (and private conversations with Wietse) figured very strongly in the development of the later stages of that paper. In fact, I like to be able to claim that the idea for using Van Jacobsen TCP-style slow-start/bounded exponential backoff for parallelism and queue retries was an idea that I contributed to the development of Postfix, and is one of the many factors that make it superior. Of course, that's starting down a rather religious path that I don't think we want to traverse. > The best is on page three, "handle at least tens of > thousands messages per day per server"... About a year ago I tested > qmail's performace with two old 486DX100/16MB/2GBIDE and 10BaseT > ethernet. And Wietse has done more with less. Again, more on that religious issue that I don't think we want to get started. > As long as these additional performance enhancements are not public > available I don't care. I'm very surprised to hear that, since there are some extensions they've made that I believe will materially change the face of delivering customized content via e-mail, and will change it to the point where it is virtually completely unrecognizable from where we are today. I'm sorry to learn that you don't want to learn about protocol enhancements of this kind of scale. -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ____________________________________________________________________ |o| Brad Knowles, <blk@skynet.be> Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o| |o| Systems Architect, News & FTP Admin Rue Col. Bourg, 124 |o| |o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49 B-1140 Brussels |o| |o| http://www.skynet.be Belgium |o| \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Unix is like a wigwam -- no Gates, no Windows, and an Apache inside. Unix is very user-friendly. It's just picky who its friends are. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04205502b42a3d1099aa>