[plug] This Mailing list

[John Summerfield]

> John Summerfield wrote:
> >
> > Highly improbable; if sendmail were that bad, nobody at all would use it.
> > However, sendmail is, if not the most-used MTA, then close to it. Plug's
> > list is hardly a high-activity one.
> 
> I've heard it often repeated that sendmail doesn't work well with large
> lists.  Of course, that's just me listening to hearsay again (and the
> fact that most of the large lists I'm on use either Postfix or qmail or
> a combination of the two).
> 
> As for your reasoning that "if sendmail were that bad, nobody at all
> would use it", how do you explain Windows?  Clearly this reasoning is
> flawed.  Numerous poor products become so well-entrenched before people
> realise their shortcomings that it is difficult to change.  sendmail's
> broad installed base is something of an example, although of course
> there are better ones.

This is wandering from the point, but I'd have thought Windows is merely 
especially mediocre.

Despite your concerns, sendmail is indeed capable of handling large 
volumes of mail; I recall do not imagine that the difference to the plug 
list is readily discernable, and that's the point of what I said.

All my incoming mail (and it's considerably more the the PLUG list) goes 
through a 486. The same 486 also serves up my web pages, collects info 
from the Internet with java and Perl and handles most of my incoming ftp.

The only problem I have is that my Java programs tend to run out of 
memory; sendmail's load is insignificant - probably the least of the 
applications running on the system.

To be sure outgoing mail is more demanding, but there's heaps of power to 
spare.

 

-- 
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.