Bulk doesn't mean to blast the world in 1 second with emails.
1) The magic of PowerMTA consists in rotating IPs base on returned codes and
returned message patterns. e.g.: if an IP addresses is banned by an ESP,
will backoff on a different IP address in order in an attempt to achieve
delivery. Th
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:53:17PM -0700, fletch wrote:
> What do you mean by: "...they can not come close to postfix as far as email
> standards go"? My understanding is that powermta fully complies with the
> various RFCs.
>
> Also, I'm sure there are far more spammers using free software like
What do you mean by: "...they can not come close to postfix as far as email
standards go"? My understanding is that powermta fully complies with the
various RFCs.
Also, I'm sure there are far more spammers using free software like postfix
rather than paying for a commercial product.
On Wed, Jun
wie...@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) wrote:
> fletch:
> > The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to
say
> > the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
> > range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet,
pe
I know powermta as well as postfix and I think I can add to some of the
comments on here, powermta is not cheap by any means and of course postfix
is free, however pmta might have some settings out of the box that are
optimized for bulk but they can not come close to postfix as far as email
standar
On 6/12/2013 4:40 PM, fletch wrote:
> Peer,
>
> There's no way that's a production figure. You may have queued that many,
> but I seriously doubt you got anything close to 3-4 million/hour when
> postfix was actually conducting delivery with the remote gateways...
>
This point is somewhat moo
Peer,
There's no way that's a production figure. You may have queued that many,
but I seriously doubt you got anything close to 3-4 million/hour when
postfix was actually conducting delivery with the remote gateways...
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Peer Heinlein [via Postfix] <
ml-node+s107
Am 12.06.2013 21:17, schrieb fletch:
> The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
> the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
> range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
> here are claiming 10 million/h
On 06/12/2013 12:17 PM, fletch wrote:
The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
here are claiming 10 million/hour?
fletch:
> The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
> the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
> range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
> here are claiming 10 million/hour? I guess that would be p
Am 12.06.2013 21:17, schrieb fletch:
> here are claiming 10 million/hour? I guess that would be possible if a
> sender were to run, say, 40 postfix instances which would be a complete
> management nightmare of course.
You already lost.
I did this even 5-6 years ago with 3-4 millionen mails / ho
The postfix performance claims made via this thread are far-fetched to say
the least. Most postfix users will only see outbound throughput in the
range of ~250,000/hour per instance in a production setting. Yet, people on
here are claiming 10 million/hour? I guess that would be possible if a
sen
On 9/2/2012 11:14 AM, Sam Jones wrote:
On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 15:39 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 10:43:07AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
More to satisfy my own curiosity than anything else, I'm wondering about
the performance that could be squeezed out of Postfix in a bulk m
On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 22:46 +0200, Lorens Kockum wrote:
> The exact same question was sent by someone calling himself
> "Ron White" to the exim mailing list at almost exactly the same
> time. Peddling one's services by soliciting comparisons with
> competitors is so passé . . .
>
Yes, it was. Well
DTNX Postmaster wrote:
They aren't my perfect world criteria, but a direct quote from Sam
Jones' earlier buzzword compliant reply.
It was meant to illustrate the often ridiculous nature of vendor
benchmarks, how useless they are in real world situations, and
therefore how silly it is to pick s
On Sep 3, 2012, at 13:05, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 12:02 AM, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
>
>> In other words, if 'we strip this back to hypothetical and assume a
>> perfect world without any issues', this 'GreenArrow' maxes out at
>> 300,000 messages per hour. Postfix can send 10,8 million
On 9/3/2012 12:02 AM, DTNX Postmaster wrote:
> In other words, if 'we strip this back to hypothetical and assume a
> perfect world without any issues', this 'GreenArrow' maxes out at
> 300,000 messages per hour. Postfix can send 10,8 million messages per
> hour, more than 35 times as fast*.
In
* Viktor Dukhovni :
> Running a high volume bulk email platform is not a software problem.
> It is a logistics problem. Enrolling on the whitelists and feedback
> loops of various large email providers, handling bounce-backs,
> jumping through rate-limit hoops, ...
Absolutely.
--
Ralf Hildebran
* Sam Jones :
> More to satisfy my own curiosity than anything else, I'm wondering about
> the performance that could be squeezed out of Postfix in a bulk mailing
> capacity.
The problem is mostly on the receiving side, when the receiving system
starts throtteling you.
> I have a client that cur
* Sam Jones :
> I guess what I'm querying in a way is some of the sales blurb from
> people like PowerMTA & GreenArrow and the remarks they make about open
> source solutions like Postfix etc. This one in particular: "Open source
> Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs) often max out between 20 and 30 thousan
On Sep 3, 2012, at 03:56, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 07:14:35PM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
>
>> I guess what I'm querying in a way is some of the sales blurb from
>> people like PowerMTA & GreenArrow and the remarks they make about open
>> source solutions like Postfix etc. Thi
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 07:14:35PM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
> I guess what I'm querying in a way is some of the sales blurb from
> people like PowerMTA & GreenArrow and the remarks they make about open
> source solutions like Postfix etc. This one in particular: "Open source
> Mail Transfer Agents
Il 02/09/2012 11:43, Sam Jones ha scritto:
> More to satisfy my own curiosity than anything else, I'm wondering about
> the performance that could be squeezed out of Postfix in a bulk mailing
> capacity.
>
> I have a client that currently uses and ESP who have an astounding
> throughput of up to a
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 22:46:10 +0200
Lorens Kockum wrote:
> The exact same question was sent by someone calling himself
> "Ron White" to the exim mailing list at almost exactly the same
> time. Peddling one's services by soliciting comparisons with
> competitors is so passé . . .
I find it rather u
The exact same question was sent by someone calling himself
"Ron White" to the exim mailing list at almost exactly the same
time. Peddling one's services by soliciting comparisons with
competitors is so passé . . .
Sam Jones:
> I guess what I'm querying in a way is some of the sales blurb from
> people like PowerMTA & GreenArrow and the remarks they make about open
> source solutions like Postfix etc. This one in particular: "Open source
> Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs) often max out between 20 and 30 thousand
>
On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 15:39 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 10:43:07AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
>
> > More to satisfy my own curiosity than anything else, I'm wondering about
> > the performance that could be squeezed out of Postfix in a bulk mailing
> > capacity.
>
> Runni
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 10:43:07AM +0100, Sam Jones wrote:
> More to satisfy my own curiosity than anything else, I'm wondering about
> the performance that could be squeezed out of Postfix in a bulk mailing
> capacity.
Running a high volume bulk email platform is not a software problem.
It is a
Am 02.09.2012 11:43, schrieb Sam Jones:
> More to satisfy my own curiosity than anything else, I'm wondering about
> the performance that could be squeezed out of Postfix in a bulk mailing
> capacity.
>
> I have a client that currently uses and ESP who have an astounding
> throughput of up to a mi
29 matches
Mail list logo
