Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA22133; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:59:45 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:58:49 -0500 Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA22089; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:58:47 -0500 Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 666); 6 Mar 1996 23:00:35 GMT Date: 6 Mar 1996 23:00:35 GMT Message-ID: <19960306230035.15369.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: re PIPELINING > Bernstein's algorithm is intended to improve real-time latency with sendmail's > type of queueing strategy. Bullshit. If you had even glanced at qmail you would be aware that its queueing strategy is very different from sendmail's. In particular, qmail does not ``delay the easy cases because of ... the hard cases.'' Messages are handled independently. The only reason qmail ever delays is to obey the concurrency limit imposed by the sysadmin. > Nor does it scale; Bullshit. It scales just fine. > I recommend that we make the observation that using a single-threaded FIFO > queue in a mailer leads to performance problems, and move on. ``FIFO queue'' is redundant. ``Single-threaded queue'' is meaningless. And it's counterproductive to call a particular level of performance a ``problem'' if you don't suggest a way to do better. I (obviously) have no objection to the existing ``multiple concurrent outgoing mail transactions'' paragraph. ---Dan