[Mailman-Developers] Uncaught bounce notification ..

Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham at dev.InTechnology.co.uk
Fri Nov 14 08:48:05 EST 2003

On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 13:40, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:05:48 +0100 
> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
> > 2) VERP will probably cost quite a bit of CPU/memory/disk-IO resources
> > on the mail servert.  Currently that server almost constantly runs on
> > load 2.5 -- 3 (because of anti-virus / anti-spam / mailman ..)
> The added overhead is increased delivery expense in the form of more
> disk IO, both for the initial delivery from Mailman, and the final
> delivery to the target MX.  The other overheads are fairly minimal given
> minor MTA tuning.

Virus/Spam scanning should not be done for mail injection from mailman -
its already been scanned when it came through the MTA on the way into
mailman, so a second scan is completely superfluous and downright silly
when you have expanded the original incoming message into a number of
outgoing ones (even without VERP).

[ Nigel Metheringham           Nigel.Metheringham at InTechnology.co.uk ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]

More information about the Mailman-Developers mailing list