Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:19:47 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UUCP (important clarification) Message-ID: <343ED433.42877E5C@whistle.com> References: <199710102118.OAA12575@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?343ED433.42877E5C>