someone knows a good sendmail mailing list ? active like this one ?
thanks..
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, osamu wrote:
> someone knows a good sendmail mailing list ? active like this one ?
I doubt it, if only because sendmail wouldn't be able to
handle the load.
(yeah, I know it's off-topic; but I couldn't resist this one)
cheers,
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
[email protected] (Rik van Riel) writes:
>On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, osamu wrote:
>> someone knows a good sendmail mailing list ? active like this one ?
>I doubt it, if only because sendmail wouldn't be able to
>handle the load.
Why does this lie gets repeated over and over again? This is as wrong
as the again and again posted "threads is salt" quote of davem.
There are lots of badly set up sendmail sites, just because sendmail
is ubiquitous. Maybe it's because of this.
But a well set up sendmail handles almost any load that you throw at
it. I've set up sites handling an OC-3 load of E-Mail with just a few
boxes fine.
Ok, admittedly not on Linux. If this gets repeated again and again on
LKM, maybe it should read "sendmail on Linux can not handle the load" [1].
>(yeah, I know it's off-topic; but I couldn't resist this one)
Well, at least in this point, you're not enlightened. ;-)
Regards
Henning
[1] And davem maybe meant "Threads on Linux", too. =:-)
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
> "threads is salt" quote of davem.
Please attribute things correctly, even though I agree with it
these aren't my words, they are Larry McVoy's.
Later,
David S. Miller
[email protected]
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:50:40PM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Ok, admittedly not on Linux. If this gets repeated again and
again on LKM, maybe it should read "sendmail on Linux can not
handle the load" [1].
Whilst I admit sendmail is a horrible monster which I hope never to
deal with again; I wonder why you claim performance if better on OSs
other than linux (presumaby you mean comaprable hardware and
configuration)?
In my experience, sendmail performs no worse under linux than
elsewhere and sometimes better (asynchronous metadata writes
suspected to be the cause, not verified)
--cw