Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id VAA05998; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:20:00 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:19:27 -0500 Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id VAA05927; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:19:24 -0500 Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 666); 7 Mar 1996 02:21:16 GMT Date: 7 Mar 1996 02:21:16 GMT Message-ID: <19960307022116.15761.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: re PIPELINING [ MRC: ] > I propose that we all ignore Bernstein I'm pointing out technical flaws in the DRUMS documents. Ignoring me would be a violation of the trust that the Internet community places in the IETF working groups. In contrast, Mark, you are spewing completely unjustified garbage. Take, for example, your claim that qmail's delivery doesn't scale. Did you provide even a shred of evidence to support this? No. Did you bother to find out that people are using qmail for lists of thousands of recipients? No. Did you bother to find out that qmail can sustain even higher loads than Zmailer? No. Did you bother to find out about the burst tests designed to stress different pieces of the system? No. Another example is your pathetic attempt to suggest that qmail's queueing strategy is like sendmail's. If you want to go babble in the corner about ``single-threaded FIFO queues,'' fine, but don't spread lies about my work. ---Dan