From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 26 14:52:30 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id OAA09780 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 14:52:30 -0800 Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA09750 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 14:52:03 -0800 Received: from sax.sax.de by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de with SMTP (5.67b+/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA00648; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:49:19 +0100 Received: by sax.sax.de (8.6.9/8.6.9-s1) with UUCP id XAA15706 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:49:19 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA19889 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:48:09 +0100 From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199502262248.XAA19889@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: rmail(1) and sendmail -bi To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:48:09 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: <9502262006.AA06729@brasil.moneng.mei.com> from "Joe Greco" at Feb 26, 95 02:06:41 pm Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1736 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Joe Greco wrote: > > > All this went very fine, so what's the point that our rmail uses the > > conservative approach (-odq) only? > There was a mini-flamewar a while back about this. I remember this one, but don't remember the arguments people had. > .. It is possible to cause much > grief with modes other than -odq with rmail, particularly if one is > unfortunate enough to get several uuxqt sessions going and you suddenly have > a dozen sendmails concurrently trying to hog system resources. Even -odq > suffers from this a little bit. But i think the _average_ FreeBSD box (is there any? :-) is not going to suffer from this, instead people will be wondering why the just- arrived UUCP mails are not yet delivered. The default -q30m is _way_ too large for this. I think if someone is setting up a UUCP dialin machine where it's possible to start 30 concurrent uuxqt's, but he only uses a 386sx/16 with 4 MB RAM for this, he gets what he deserves. >:-) sendmail -odi instead of -odq does only increase the system load by one additional process, and they don't even run concurrently. The only difference to -odq is, that sendmail und uuxqt will run alter- nately (as opposed to the sequence of first doing all uuxqt jobs and then, some time later, all mail jobs). > *I'D* like an rmail which can deal with an RFC822 formatted message, without > all the From line crud. I've been hacking around this myself. rm -f /bin/rmail cat > /bin/rmail #!/bin/sh exec /usr/sbin/sendmail -odi $* ^D chmod 755 /bin/rmail :-) [I'm using this one on the main server in our company.] -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)