On 1/17/2014 12:36 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
...
> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-access_control_lists.html#SECTcontrols
>
> ,
> | control = cutthrough_delivery
> |
> | This option requests delivery be attempted while the item is being
> | received. It is usable in th
Adrian Zaugg wrote:
> Am 17.01.14 10:53 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
>> On 1/16/2014 6:56 PM, Murray Trainer wrote:
>> MTA = disk. Always has always will. Disk throughput is always the
>> critical factor for queue performance, and an MTA is little more than a
>> queue. Which makes it surprising that
Am 17.01.14 10:53 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> On 1/16/2014 6:56 PM, Murray Trainer wrote:
> MTA = disk. Always has always will. Disk throughput is always the
> critical factor for queue performance, and an MTA is little more than a
> queue. Which makes it surprising that so many people ignore dis
On 2014-01-17 10:53, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 1/16/2014 6:56 PM, Murray Trainer wrote:
This is probably a bit off-topic but does anyone have any idea about
sizing MTA servers. We have about 200,000 emails/hr incoming and
outgoing. I am intending using Exim and Spamassassin on each MTA.
How m
On 1/16/2014 6:56 PM, Murray Trainer wrote:
> This is probably a bit off-topic but does anyone have any idea about
> sizing MTA servers. We have about 200,000 emails/hr incoming and
> outgoing. I am intending using Exim and Spamassassin on each MTA.
> How many servers using recent hardware wo
Hi All,
This is probably a bit off-topic but does anyone have any idea about
sizing MTA servers. We have about 200,000 emails/hr incoming and
outgoing. I am intending using Exim and Spamassassin on each MTA.
How many servers using recent hardware would I need to cope with this
mail throughput
