From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 10 18:30:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22372 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:30:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22367 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:30:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA12793; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from current1.whistle.com(207.76.205.22) via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd012791; Sat Oct 11 01:20:59 1997 Message-ID: <343ED433.42877E5C@whistle.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:19:47 -0700 From: Julian Elischer Organization: Whistle Communications X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert CC: Bradley Dunn , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UUCP (important clarification) References: <199710102118.OAA12575@usr08.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I work for an ISP and we make a decent amount of money selling UUCP to > > small businesses. It works a whole lot better than the 'ETRN' SMTP > > hackery. > > Er, what exactly don't you like about ETRN? I admit that "TURN" was > definitely hackery (and Post.Office's XREMOTEQUEUE), but ETRN seems > to me to be the way to go. It beats the finger-based triggerring > hack all to heck... > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. The troubel with ETRN is that it requires the server to start a queue-run if you have 20,000 items in the queue, then EVERY ONE of them has to be examined to see if it's for the user.. a queu run can take 10 minutes in this case. (e.g. at netcom they had this problem..) they don't like ETRN.. figure.. 1000 clients connecting per hour.. 4 minutes cpu+disk time per client + disk activity (lots) == about 60 time the cpu/disk resources that you have. ETRN SUCKS or more correctly.. sendmail's way of queueing mail is not compatible with ETRN.