288052Re: Bulk Mailing Performance
- Sep 3, 2012On 9/2/2012 11:14 AM, Sam Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 15:39 +0000, 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
>> 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, ...
>>Knowing absolutely nothing about the software mentioned - I would say
>> 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
>> messages per hour. GreenArrow can send 300,000 messages per hour—more
>> than ten times as fast."
there is a difference between messages SENT vs messages DELIVERED. I
realize many will immediately correct me and say even Postfix can't
guarantee delivery to a given recipient - merely acknowledgement of the
recipient server's acceptance - but I don't know how else to
discriminate between a single-pass of a message, without retries,
without verification, without greylist tolerance, without reporting,
just knock on the door and try to shove it on - vs reliable message
Again, knowing nothing about alternatives to Postfix - I question
whether software intended for bulk mailing purposes is designed in such
a manner. As a crude analogy, even the best machine gun doesn't have a
fraction of the accuracy of a quality sniper rifle - but on the other
hand a machine gun will put a lot more lead downrange. Different tools
for different purposes. Spray-and-Pray - or deliver the personal message.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>