From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/39991 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Matt Armstrong" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: thoughts on spam Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 10:57:43 -0700 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87n122s9k8.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com> References: <87y9m9fs6b.fsf@squeaker.lickey.com> <20011102160930.CC3D1BD52@squeaker.lickey.com> <87wv192jzh.fsf_-_@mclinux.com> <861yjgbygz.fsf@duchess.twilley.org> <20011102235444.E9C73BD48@squeaker.lickey.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035175612 30882 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:46:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:46:52 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 14850 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 17:59:01 -0000 Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu (mail@129.7.128.13) by mastaler.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 17:59:01 -0000 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 160RXK-0003fa-00; Sun, 04 Nov 2001 11:58:22 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 04 Nov 2001 11:58:01 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA08090 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:57:47 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 14832 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2001 17:58:02 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 14827 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 17:58:02 -0000 Original-Received: from hank.lickey.com (64.81.100.235) by gnus.org with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 17:58:02 -0000 Original-Received: from squeaker.lickey.com (squeaker.lickey.com [192.168.100.10]) by hank.lickey.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E0AEE30 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 10:57:47 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by squeaker.lickey.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4221BD48 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 10:57:46 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: by squeaker.lickey.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A300DBD29; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 10:57:45 -0700 (MST) Original-To: "(ding)" In-Reply-To: (Stainless Steel Rat's message of "04 Nov 2001 04:04:42 -0500") Original-Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA v0.40/Python 1.5.2 (linux2) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20010714 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:39991 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:39991 Stainless Steel Rat writes: > * "Jason R. Mastaler" on Sun, 04 Nov 2001 > | Anyway, Postfix and Exim are reasonable Sendmail-alternatives as well. > > They are -not- reasonable for -all- cases. I have seen Postfix's > parallelization totally cripple my network at work. As far as we > could figure, Postfix did not ratchet down fast enough and the end > result was a crashed firewall MTA and an unknown quantity of lost > mail. We reset everything and Postfix did it again. I have little > doubt that qmail would achieve the same results, only faster. > > Before you say anything like, "but, you can configure foo to do > bar," no, we cannot. No matter what tweaking we might do there is > always the slim possibility that Postfix will do that again. The > only way we can guarantee that it will not happen is not to use > Postfix at all. sendmail works. That made our choice of MTA a > no-brainer. FUD -- you can configure postfix such that there is zero possibility that it'll flood your network. -- matt