Mailing List Archive

bandwidth costs
> HA! I should install a new freeware to add $200 to my monthly costs?!

Reality check: qmail uses less bandwidth than sendmail.

I've studied four sites so far, and this was the result in every case.

By installing qmail, you will _reduce_ your monthly costs.

Of course, if you really cared about bandwidth, you wouldn't be using
SMTP. See http://pobox.com/~djb/txt/modest-proposal.txt.

> Qmail sends
> the same 2K messge 1000 times instead of a one-time 10k message

``10k message''? sendmail will use about 170K.

Don't you think you should spend some time learning how your bandwidth
is actually used?

> it's 1000 processes opening connections and timing out.

Reality check: qmail automatically handles connection timeouts; after a
couple of minutes it will leave the host alone for an hour.

The problem in this case was DNS timeouts, not connection timeouts, and
it was fixed in the DNS server.

---Dan
Let your users manage their own mailing lists. http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail.html
Re: bandwidth costs [ In reply to ]
On 23 Feb 1997, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> Of course, if you really cared about bandwidth, you wouldn't be using
> SMTP. See http://pobox.com/~djb/txt/modest-proposal.txt.

(that points at
http://ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/txt/modest-proposal.txt, but NM)

right you are.

everyone: starting tommorow, SMTP will no longer be used on my system, I'm
becoming environment friendly, so don't try my port 25. my uplink has
agreed to pack all my mail on diskettes for me until the binary,
compressed equivelant of ESMTP is released.

> > Qmail sends
> > the same 2K messge 1000 times instead of a one-time 10k message
>
> ``10k message''? sendmailwill use about 170K.

100k, my typo, but NM: either 100k or 200k are still better than 2000k.