On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:34:57 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <linux@???> wrote:
> Richard Welty [3/4/2004 8:41 PM] :
> > i am given to understand that the qmail defaults aren't that abusive,
> > and that we have overly enthusiastic mail admins to thank for tweaking
> > qmail parameters up to insane levels.
> There's a patch to bump the number of parallel connections to over 500 I
> think. And there's a note in the patch that the guy's ISP was quite
> unwilling to have him open up 500 simultaneous connections to their MXs.
> That, and opening up connections is not painful as long as they deliver
> the email and close the connection / clean up after themselves.
i've only ever seen a problem once, and that was a pathological case.
an alias on my (exim) server was set up to forward to a webmaster's
local account at an ISP using qmail. his mailbox filled, and the
combination of aliases formed a mail loop for the bounce message.
the 3 or 4 outbound qmail hosts were quite able to swamp my little
266Mhz Pentium II; it was really awful to clean up that mess.
but i've only seen a case like that where a semi-standard qmail
config killed another mail server once.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@???
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
