On Saturday 21 October 2006 15:07, Jörg Sommer wrote:
> on a private mailing list, someone raised the claim Exim has a bad queue
> handling and relies on delivering the mail in the first attempt. The
> discussion was about greylisting and "using" the queue of the remote site.
>
> Speaking accross the board, is it true that Exim has bad (it need more
> resources) queue handling? For Exim on the sender site, is greylisting a
> problem?
One thing I've noticed - we have a client that uses some php software that
spams out a mass mailing by sending about 5000 individual messages into the
queue at once.
When we were running qmail, qmail would very efficiently throw these all into
it's queue and send them out at it's maximum concurrency setting without
hardly touching the system resources. Now that we have exim in place, it
slams the server really bad and takes a very long time to get the mail out in
comparison. We've compensated somewhat by having limits on how much can be
shoved in at once, and then the rest sits in the (still qmail) queue on the
webserver (it then gets routed through our outbound). This keeps the system
load below triple digits and prevents service interruption, but it does take
quite a while for all the mail to actually get sent out. qmail was much more
efficient at handling huge gobs of mail - it's simply not one of exim's many
strengths. I don't know any mailer that can beat qmail on raw queue
processing efficiency (it lacks tons of features in comparison though).
But unless you're sending out an enormous amount of mail or have a plethora
hit the queue all at once, you probably have nothing to worry about.
I think that the ideal situation would be to use exim still for the MSA
(accept authenticated connections from client), but then use qmail to route
all outbound E-mail, both from our servers as well as the MSA. But that's an
ideal I live without for now.
Cheers,
--
SeattleServer.com Mailing Lists - Casey Allen Shobe
lists@??? -
http://seattleserver.com
