Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Bulk Mailing Performance

Expand Messages
  • Viktor Dukhovni
    ... As I said, I measured 300 msgs/sec with Postfix on relatively modest hardware in 2003. This is not too difficult, just configure sufficient output
    Message 1 of 30 , Sep 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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 (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."

      As I said, I measured 300 msgs/sec with Postfix on relatively modest
      hardware in 2003. This is not too difficult, just configure sufficient
      output concurrency, and provide a low latency disk (battery cache
      striped RAID).

      With RAM disk (a queue-manager bottleneck analysis, circa five
      years ago) Postfix yielded ~3000 msgs/sec on a dual Opteron box
      delivering to the discard transport. So that's your ceiling if you
      provide sufficient disk and network bandwidth, eventually the queue
      manager runs out of CPU, but this is at rates approaching 10 million
      messages an hour.

      The throughput numbers are not that interesting anymore, I go for
      reliability, security and flexibility. I also go for a solid
      architecture that degrades well under load, and that's why I
      really like Postfix, but this is a difficult point to make,
      most people are not in a position to understand why Postfix
      stands out in this regard.

      --
      Viktor.
    • DTNX Postmaster
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 30 , Sep 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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. 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."
        >
        > As I said, I measured 300 msgs/sec with Postfix on relatively modest
        > hardware in 2003. This is not too difficult, just configure sufficient
        > output concurrency, and provide a low latency disk (battery cache
        > striped RAID).
        >
        > With RAM disk (a queue-manager bottleneck analysis, circa five
        > years ago) Postfix yielded ~3000 msgs/sec on a dual Opteron box
        > delivering to the discard transport. So that's your ceiling if you
        > provide sufficient disk and network bandwidth, eventually the queue
        > manager runs out of CPU, but this is at rates approaching 10 million
        > messages an hour.
        >
        > The throughput numbers are not that interesting anymore, I go for
        > reliability, security and flexibility. I also go for a solid
        > architecture that degrades well under load, and that's why I
        > really like Postfix, but this is a difficult point to make,
        > most people are not in a position to understand why Postfix
        > stands out in this regard.

        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*.

        Lies, damn lies, and vendor benchmarks, heh.

        Cya,
        Jona

        --

        * Tests performed in an optimized lab environment. Operational
        restrictions may apply in real world environments.
      • Stefan Foerster
        ... My desktop machine - the very same one I m writing this mail on - is currently delivering 65 messages per second to a smtp-sink. On a single 2TB SATA drive
        Message 3 of 30 , Sep 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          * Sam Jones <sam_jones90@...>:
          > 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."

          My desktop machine - the very same one I'm writing this mail on - is
          currently delivering 65 messages per second to a smtp-sink. On a
          single 2TB SATA drive that will probably suffer a heart attack if you
          even so much as threaten it with more than 20 IOPS/s. That's while
          watching a 1080p video (footage from my last holiday). With no tuning
          whatsoever.

          Granted, not a real world use case, but still, don't trust everything
          you read on the web.


          Stefan
        • Ralf Hildebrandt
          ... The problem is mostly on the receiving side, when the receiving system starts throtteling you. ... I once sent 2096/min*60min = 125.760mails/minute on
          Message 4 of 30 , Sep 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            * Sam Jones <sam_jones90@...>:

            > 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 currently uses and ESP who have an astounding
            > throughput of up to a million messages per hour. This brought up a
            > discussion about high-performance MTAs and tuning and the general
            > comments I'm hearing are that things like Postfix, Exim, Sendmail &
            > are just not man enough for such a task and the absolute best you could
            > expect from any of them is about 100k messages per hour.

            I once sent 2096/min*60min = 125.760mails/minute on mail.python.org
            and there the generation of the mails is the limiting factor.

            --
            Ralf Hildebrandt
            Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
            Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
            Campus Benjamin Franklin
            Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
            Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
            ralf.hildebrandt@... | http://www.charite.de
          • Ralf Hildebrandt
            ... Absolutely. -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30
            Message 5 of 30 , Sep 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              * Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@...>:

              > 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 Hildebrandt
              Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
              Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
              Campus Benjamin Franklin
              Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12203 Berlin
              Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
              ralf.hildebrandt@... | http://www.charite.de
            • Stan Hoeppner
              ... In all fairness, given your perfect world criteria, this ESP would be moving a lot more mail as well, with no restrictions on the outbound pipe or at the
              Message 6 of 30 , Sep 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                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 all fairness, given your "perfect world" criteria, this ESP would be
                moving a lot more mail as well, with no restrictions on the outbound
                pipe or at the receiver.

                But as others have correctly pointed out, the issue here isn't MTA
                performance, it's administrative performance. The last thread I
                responded to demonstrates this. The big advantage ESPs have is their
                established relationships with the freemailers and other large mailbox
                providers. These allow them greater throughput than the unwashed bulk
                sender, at least into the receiver's initial queue.

                --
                Stan
              • DTNX Postmaster
                ... 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
                Message 7 of 30 , Sep 3, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 messages per
                  >> hour, more than 35 times as fast*.
                  >
                  > In all fairness, given your "perfect world" criteria, this ESP would be
                  > moving a lot more mail as well, with no restrictions on the outbound
                  > pipe or at the receiver.
                  >
                  > But as others have correctly pointed out, the issue here isn't MTA
                  > performance, it's administrative performance. The last thread I
                  > responded to demonstrates this. The big advantage ESPs have is their
                  > established relationships with the freemailers and other large mailbox
                  > providers. These allow them greater throughput than the unwashed bulk
                  > sender, at least into the receiver's initial queue.

                  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 software based on theoretical limits
                  you will most likely never hit.

                  Not enough sarcasm, I guess ;-)

                  Cya,
                  Jona
                • Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
                  ... Not really ridiculous. All those benchmarks are interesting, as they represent, say, the intrinsic performance of the software . The problem is to tell
                  Message 8 of 30 , Sep 3, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 software based on theoretical limits
                    > you will most likely never hit.

                    Not really ridiculous. All those benchmarks are interesting, as they represent,
                    say, the "intrinsic performance of the software". The problem is to tell (for
                    the vendor) and to take into account (for the reader) the conditions at which
                    the benchmark was done.

                    But, sure, two pieces of software can be compared only if measurings are done
                    with the same conditions. And one software which has better "intrinsic
                    performance" may not be better in real world conditions.


                    --
                  • Sam Jones
                    ... Yes, it was. Well done. The question applied to both MTA s and funny enough, the use of Aliases on the internet is nothing new. Thanks to those that
                    Message 9 of 30 , Sep 3, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 done. The question applied to both MTA's and funny
                      enough, the use of Aliases on the internet is nothing new.

                      Thanks to those that contributed useful information. I think it's safe
                      to say that the sales blurb is looking at a very basic scenario.
                    • Daniel L. Miller
                      ... [...] ... Knowing absolutely nothing about the software mentioned - I would say there is a difference between messages SENT vs messages DELIVERED. I
                      Message 10 of 30 , Sep 3, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 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
                        >>> capacity.
                        >> 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, ...
                        [...]
                        >>
                        >> 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."
                        >>

                        Knowing absolutely nothing about the software mentioned - I would say
                        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
                        handling.

                        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.

                        --
                        Daniel
                      • 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
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                          sender were to run, say, 40 postfix instances which would be a complete
                          management nightmare of course.

                          Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                          would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial software
                          products v. open source were not substantial.



                          --
                          View this message in context: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58873.html
                          Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                        • Wietse Venema
                          ... Is this a troll? I have documented Postfix performance claims on Wikipedia. Be sure to read the cautionary note about factors outside of Postfix that in
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 possible if a
                            > sender were to run, say, 40 postfix instances which would be a complete
                            > management nightmare of course.
                            >
                            > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                            > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial software
                            > products v. open source were not substantial.

                            Is this a troll?

                            I have documented Postfix performance claims on Wikipedia. Be sure
                            to read the cautionary note about factors outside of Postfix that
                            in practice limit the delivery performance.

                            Wietse
                          • Joe
                            ... In our experience, postfix can blast out messages at rates which are orders of magnitude faster than the other end is willing to receive it. The
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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? 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.
                              >
                              > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                              > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial software
                              > products v. open source were not substantial.


                              In our experience, postfix can blast out messages at rates which are
                              orders of magnitude faster than the other end is willing to receive it.
                              The "substantial benefits" you speak of are mainly along the lines of
                              easier management tools and integration of same with various other email
                              related components in one convenient interface.

                              Joe
                            • Peer Heinlein
                              ... You already lost. I did this even 5-6 years ago with 3-4 millionen mails / hour in one postfix instance on one stupid dual-xeon server with 100 MBit
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 / hour in one
                                postfix instance on one stupid dual-xeon server with 100 MBit uplink.

                                > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                                > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial software
                                > products v. open source were not substantial.

                                They're making sales with people, that believe that people coming from a
                                comercial company are always and automatically better then everbody else.


                                Peer


                                --
                                Heinlein Support GmbH
                                Schwedter Str. 8/9b, 10119 Berlin

                                http://www.heinlein-support.de

                                Tel: 030 / 405051-42
                                Fax: 030 / 405051-19

                                Zwangsangaben lt. §35a GmbHG: HRB 93818 B / Amtsgericht
                                Berlin-Charlottenburg,
                                Geschäftsführer: Peer Heinlein -- Sitz: Berlin
                              • Robert Schetterer
                                ... however magic jedi software overpower setup you might use for deliver out, you never will reach the higher powered master level , where you can press all
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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/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.
                                  >
                                  > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                                  > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial software
                                  > products v. open source were not substantial.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  > View this message in context: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58873.html
                                  > Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                                  >

                                  however magic jedi software overpower setup you might use for deliver
                                  out, you never will reach the higher powered master level , where you
                                  can press all others to take your mails at a number in time periods you
                                  might like , so using paid services/software for bulk maybe a good idea
                                  by many things, comparing it to some default settings of postfix is
                                  simply nonsense and typical marketing bla bla


                                  Best Regards
                                  MfG Robert Schetterer

                                  --
                                  [*] sys4 AG

                                  http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
                                  Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München

                                  Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
                                  Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Axel von der Ohe, Marc Schiffbauer
                                  Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
                                • fletch
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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+s1071664n58876h85@...> wrote:

                                    > 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 / hour in one
                                    > postfix instance on one stupid dual-xeon server with 100 MBit uplink.
                                    >
                                    > > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                                    > > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial
                                    > software
                                    > > products v. open source were not substantial.
                                    >
                                    > They're making sales with people, that believe that people coming from a
                                    > comercial company are always and automatically better then everbody else.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Peer
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --
                                    > Heinlein Support GmbH
                                    > Schwedter Str. 8/9b, 10119 Berlin
                                    >
                                    > http://www.heinlein-support.de
                                    >
                                    > Tel: 030 / 405051-42
                                    > Fax: 030 / 405051-19
                                    >
                                    > Zwangsangaben lt. §35a GmbHG: HRB 93818 B / Amtsgericht
                                    > Berlin-Charlottenburg,
                                    > Geschäftsführer: Peer Heinlein -- Sitz: Berlin
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------
                                    > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
                                    > below:
                                    >
                                    > http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58876.html
                                    > To unsubscribe from Bulk Mailing Performance, click here<http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=50222&code=cnVzc2VsbC5mbGV0Y2hlckBnbWFpbC5jb218NTAyMjJ8NjMyNDM5NDgw>
                                    > .
                                    > NAML<http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
                                    >




                                    --
                                    View this message in context: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58878.html
                                    Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                                  • Ben Johnson
                                    ... This point is somewhat moot, quite frankly, because the performance claims as documented on Wikipedia state: Postfix has been clocked at ~300 message
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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 moot, quite frankly, because the performance
                                      claims as documented on Wikipedia state:

                                      Postfix has been clocked at ~300 message deliveries/second[6] across the
                                      Internet, running on commodity hardware (a vintage-2003 Dell 1850 system
                                      with battery-backed MegaRAID controller and two SCSI disks). This
                                      delivery rate is an order of magnitude below the "intrinsic" limit of
                                      2500 message deliveries/second[6] that was achieved *with the mail queue
                                      on a RAM disk while delivering to the "discard" transport (with a
                                      dual-core Opteron system in 2007).*

                                      Nobody (besides perhaps Peer) is making any claim with respect to
                                      "real-world" performance. The performance claims as documented assume
                                      factors only within Postfix and the computer on which it's runnings'
                                      control.

                                      -Ben
                                    • AFCommerce LLC
                                      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,
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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 standards go, incoming mail, etc (in my opinion) mainly from how many servers are using it, basically postfix, exim and sendmail create the standards that a company like pmta has to try to follow.

                                        But the main reason bulk mailers mainly pay for pmta is because it has the ability to send on many ips/hostnames far easier than postfix, since postfix wasn't built (by choice) to send from 100s of ips and domains because that can easily become a tool for a spammer (a spammer could try to modify postfix I assume). The commercial support is a 2nd reason, most of us on this list wouldn't need that type of support, but a legitimate company who doesn't have a decent support staff would be interested in that.


                                        On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Robert Schetterer <rs@...> wrote:
                                        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/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.
                                        >
                                        > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                                        > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial software
                                        > products v. open source were not substantial.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --
                                        > View this message in context: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58873.html
                                        > Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                                        >

                                        however magic jedi software overpower setup you might use for deliver
                                        out, you never will reach the higher powered master level , where you
                                        can press all others to take your mails at a number in time periods you
                                        might like , so using paid services/software for bulk maybe a good idea
                                        by many things, comparing it to some default settings of postfix is
                                        simply nonsense and typical marketing bla bla


                                        Best Regards
                                        MfG Robert Schetterer

                                        --
                                        [*] sys4 AG

                                        http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
                                        Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München

                                        Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
                                        Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Axel von der Ohe, Marc Schiffbauer
                                        Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein

                                      • Roel Wagenaar
                                        ... say ... people on ... software ... Obviously YES. And quite a lot of feeders too. ... DFTT -- Roel Wagenaar, Linux-User #469851 with the Linux Counter;
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          wietse@... (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,
                                          people on
                                          > > 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.
                                          > >
                                          > > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                                          > > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial
                                          software
                                          > > products v. open source were not substantial.
                                          >
                                          > Is this a troll?



                                          Obviously YES.


                                          And quite a lot of feeders too.


                                          > I have documented Postfix performance claims on Wikipedia. Be sure
                                          > to read the cautionary note about factors outside of Postfix that
                                          > in practice limit the delivery performance.
                                          >
                                          > Wietse
                                          >
                                          >

                                          DFTT


                                          --
                                          Roel Wagenaar,

                                          Linux-User #469851 with the Linux Counter; http://linuxcounter.net/

                                          Antw.: Omdat het de volgorde verstoord waarin mensen tekst lezen.
                                          Vraag: Waarom is top-posting een slechte gewoonte?
                                          Antw.: Top-posting.
                                          Vraag: Wat is het meest ergerlijke in e-mail?

                                          Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.
                                        • fletch
                                          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
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            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 12, 2013 at 1:57 PM, AFCommerce LLC [via Postfix] <
                                            ml-node+s1071664n58880h9@...> wrote:

                                            > 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
                                            > standards go, incoming mail, etc (in my opinion) mainly from how many
                                            > servers are using it, basically postfix, exim and sendmail create the
                                            > standards that a company like pmta has to try to follow.
                                            >
                                            > But the main reason bulk mailers mainly pay for pmta is because it has the
                                            > ability to send on many ips/hostnames far easier than postfix, since
                                            > postfix wasn't built (by choice) to send from 100s of ips and domains
                                            > because that can easily become a tool for a spammer (a spammer could try to
                                            > modify postfix I assume). The commercial support is a 2nd reason, most of
                                            > us on this list wouldn't need that type of support, but a legitimate
                                            > company who doesn't have a decent support staff would be interested in that.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Robert Schetterer <[hidden email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=58880&i=0>
                                            > > wrote:
                                            >
                                            >> 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/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.
                                            >> >
                                            >> > Obviously, vendors like Port25 (company behind PowerMTA) and GreenArrow
                                            >> > would not be able to make any sales if the benefits of commercial
                                            >> software
                                            >> > products v. open source were not substantial.
                                            >> >
                                            >> >
                                            >> >
                                            >> > --
                                            >> > View this message in context:
                                            >> http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58873.html
                                            >> > Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                                            >> >
                                            >>
                                            >> however magic jedi software overpower setup you might use for deliver
                                            >> out, you never will reach the higher powered master level , where you
                                            >> can press all others to take your mails at a number in time periods you
                                            >> might like , so using paid services/software for bulk maybe a good idea
                                            >> by many things, comparing it to some default settings of postfix is
                                            >> simply nonsense and typical marketing bla bla
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >> Best Regards
                                            >> MfG Robert Schetterer
                                            >>
                                            >> --
                                            >> [*] sys4 AG
                                            >>
                                            >> http://sys4.de, <a href="tel:%2B49%20%2889%29%2030%2090%2046%2064"
                                            >> value="+498930904664">+49 (89) 30 90 46 64
                                            >> Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
                                            >>
                                            >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
                                            >> Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Axel von der Ohe, Marc Schiffbauer
                                            >> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------
                                            > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
                                            > below:
                                            >
                                            > http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58880.html
                                            > To unsubscribe from Bulk Mailing Performance, click here<http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=50222&code=cnVzc2VsbC5mbGV0Y2hlckBnbWFpbC5jb218NTAyMjJ8NjMyNDM5NDgw>
                                            > .
                                            > NAML<http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
                                            >




                                            --
                                            View this message in context: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p58882.html
                                            Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                                          • Viktor Dukhovni
                                            ... Let s not go down this rabbit-hole. At this point in the thread we re no longer talking about Postfix. -- Viktor.
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jun 12, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              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 postfix
                                              > rather than paying for a commercial product.

                                              Let's not go down this rabbit-hole. At this point in the thread we're no
                                              longer talking about Postfix.

                                              --
                                              Viktor.
                                            • Marius Gologan
                                              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
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jun 30, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                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. Thus, is designed for email marketing area, not for corporate
                                                email service.
                                                If you read the 330 pages guide you'll find that, by default, is sending 2
                                                messages via 2 parallel connections. Can be increased considerable, but you
                                                need to be a genius in 'warp speed' throttling and have IPs+Sender Domains
                                                as Amazon SES has.
                                                It is very limited for inbound messages handling.

                                                2) Postfix is a true performance MTA, used world wide (mature).
                                                The Magic of Postfix is quite complex. E.g: unlike PowerMTA, provides
                                                dynamic/adaptive throttling which is quite intelligent. It looks like it
                                                doesn't provide a way for rotating IPs as PowerMTA does. Thus, I don't see
                                                how spammers prefer Postfix. I'm still learning about Postfix secrets and
                                                how much creative can be.
                                                In my opinion, the performance for bulk deliverability should be reduce in
                                                Postfix, not increased, in order to meat ESP requirements in these days.

                                                Both MTAs are designed for two different purposes, thus, you cannot compare
                                                them.

                                                Postfix, on a *nix machine, is a true Email Server - a complex platform with
                                                many features, covering all aspects and requirements you can imagine (except
                                                the one mentioned above), but, often, many steps ahead MS Exchange.
                                                PowerMTA is an advanced sending software application for email marketers,
                                                covering exclusively their requirements and needs of rotating IPs per ESP.

                                                Marius.



                                                --
                                                View this message in context: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Bulk-Mailing-Performance-tp50222p59412.html
                                                Sent from the Postfix Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.